Best Friends Recycled

Directors Donald James Parker's vision shines through in every frame of this film. He masterfully balances moments of heartache with moments of pure joy, all while maintaining a sense of realism that keeps you fully immersed in the story. The cinematography is equally impressive, with breathtaking visuals that capture the beauty of the settings and the nuances of the characters' emotions.

The script, penned by Parker and co-writer Royce Henry, is an absolute gem. It's both heartfelt and thought-provoking, offering poignant insights into the complexities of human relationships. It's a testament to the writing that "Best Friends Recycled" not only tugs at your heartstrings but also leaves you pondering life's twists and turns long after the credits roll.

The film's soundtrack, featuring memorable and emotionally charged melodies, complements the storytelling beautifully, evoking a range of emotions that enhance the viewing experience. Every element of this film, from the music to the cinematography to the performances, works in harmony to create an unforgettable cinematic journey.

"Best Friends Recycled," directed by Donald James Parker and co-written by Parker and Royce Henry, is a testament to the power of storytelling and the enduring nature of friendship. It will make you laugh, cry, and reflect on the importance of the people who shape our lives. In a world filled with superficial connections, this film reminds us that true friends are indeed "recyclable" and can find their way back to one another no matter the distance or time apart.

In conclusion, "Best Friends Recycled" is an absolute must-see. It's a heartwarming and beautifully executed film that resonates with the soul. I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who appreciates authentic storytelling, outstanding performances, and a good dose of heartwarming emotions. This film, directed by Donald James Parker and co-written with Royce Henry, is a cinematic masterpiece that deserves all the accolades it will undoubtedly receive.

The opening to this movie is four entire minutes of two boomers, Tony and Jackson, playing chess, and talking about their chess moves, and chess has absolutely nothing to do with anything for the entire rest of the movie, and you're not even treated to the lavish production values of Queen's Gambit, nor do you get to look at Anya Taylor-Joy. It's four literal minutes of two boomers playing chess and snarkily explaining their moves to each other. But then, in the middle of this chess game, their banter takes a truly wild turn with the following line:

"That reminds me, remember that favor you owed me? You know, a while back, you agreed I'd get to pick out your next wife."

.....wait, what? Where did that come from? Is this something old friends typically do for each other? And what the heck in the middle of this chess game reminded you of that incredibly bizarre, highly specific favor your friend owes you that you're cashing in to pick out their next wife for them? Is it because you just moved your queen and it reminded you your friend hasn't yet found their queen? The segue isn't specified as obvious as it seems.

But I digress, Jackson goes out to find Tony the perfect trad-con wife, and in the very next scene Jackson eavesdrops on a conversation in a restaurant overhearing a couple of younger church ladies talking about their love lives with some older church ladies, with the younger women dropping some truly amazing lines like, "I could handle a bit of ugly, if he could dress my in diamonds and furs, but there's nothin' but slim pickins at our church." It's kind of fascinating to me that in the imagination of Donald James Parker, a girl gold digging this openly would be fishing for her sugar daddy at church. But one of the older ladies piques Jackson's interest when, in response, she begins to speak profusely fondly about how much she loved being a submissive housewife before her husband died. No joke there's an entire thirty second monologue where one character brags about how submissive she was, and then one of the younger girls counters, which leads to another truly fascinating bout of dialogue:

"I just couldn't operate like that?" "Well why not?" "I want to be in control of my life." "That's your problem." "That's MY problem. Are you serious?" "Hey Stacie listen, as a Christian, you should have submitted your life to God, and then, in obeying God, you would then, submit to your husband. If you don't follow the principal of submission, you can expect to have more difficulty in your marriage than normal."

You know, as I've been binging through Donald James Parker's filmography, I was actually looking forward to this one, because the previous entry into this trilogy, Best Friends Eternally, was pleasant by the standards of this wretched film studio. But yeah that was an anomaly, Parker is back to romanticizing theocratic fascism and framing it as the only route to true happiness, this time imagining all women as if they can be contented exclusively when they are in submission to a man. One of the younger girls pushes back against this, stating that it's not her fault if her marriage fails because she refused to be a doormat wife, to which one of the older ladies responded, "Stacie, there is a big difference between being submissive and being a doormat wife," But then she doesn't even go on to explain what the difference is, like seriously, she just leaves it there as if it's self-explanatory. What? I need to know? What's the difference between a submissive wife and a doormat wife?

This exchange impresses Jackson and he moves in as soon as the younger girls leave to talk to the older ladies and set one of them up with Tony. They agree to all meet up and what ensues is yet another basic, badly written, boring geriatric biblical romance. But then that romance is abruptly halted by another truly amazing twist that is just too bizarre and out of left field that I really wouldn't feel right spoiling it.

Also, David James Parker, yet again, gratuitously subjects you to hysterically contrived extended sequences that exist for absolutely no narrative purpose other than to show you that he is a physically active old man who is in relatively decent shape. But I'm still just so flabbergasted by what this man feels as though he needs to prove to the world with his physique? He is a very average looking 67 year old who can probably run a mile without getting winded. Sure, that's better than the average old person, but he is so proud of the accomplishment that he's near his 70s and can still briskly jog that he has made three entire movies dedicated to showcasing this slightly above average physical feat and writing dozens of characters complementing his slender build. Is it rooted in insecurity or is he legitimately that proud of himself? I don't understand.

What is there to say? If you've seen one of this guys movies you know what's in store. A lack of knowledge on even very basic reality. Self aggrandizing from Donald who doesn't understand that he's the bad guy in his own movie. Arguments that any third grader could utterly demolish. A more than sixty year old man writing into the script how attractive, successful, intelligent, and overall better than everyone else he is (which a casual knowledge of this guys life and a pair of eyes to see him debunks in seconds).... While being one of the worst examples of humanity you could find. This one includes a rather uncomfortable amount of old men trying to be physically close to the main actress. Standard DJP trash.