Miss Evers' Boys (1997 TV Movie) User Reviews (18)

A film about science, well how INTERESTING!

[stamper · 7/10 · 20 June 2002]

First of all, I must say that this was one of the best TV movies I've ever seen. Not only were there quality actors (Alfre Woodard, Laurence Fishburn, Joe Morton), but the people involved succeeded in making this an honest drama and not one where the schmaltz comes dripping out of your screen. As for the film itself I must say that all the cast and crew were great and I had no complaints about the film, but one. I really missed that sarcastic edge in the end. I mean, if I was a director I would have blacked out the screen in the end and would have inserted the conclusion of the experiment there. You know a black screen with something like: ‘Compared to whites, blacks do not react differently to syphilis.' taken from … and so on. I would have really liked that, because I (as a first year psychology student) have read about a lot of experiments even now, some of which were morally more acceptable than others, but never in my life have I read something as terrible as this. Do not get me wrong, I understood the intention at the beginning of the experiment, but I think it was unhuman to go along with it. Even if some men had died from getting pene - something (an anti biotic), it would have been better than the terrible death they faced through syphilis. But what about science you ask? Screw the data!

7 out of 10

A well crafted blend of docu and drama.

[=G= · 7/10 · 4 March 2001]

"MEB" tells the story of the infamous "Tuskeegee Syphilis Study" by building the docudrama around a black nurse (Woodard) who hailed from the black community which was the focus of the study. The polished and well crafted film spends equal time with the lives of the Macon County black sharecroppers and the questions of medical ethics the study raised resulting in an entertaining as well as informative watch. A nice mix of docu and drama, fact and fiction.

Tuskegee terror

[donaldricco · 7/10 · 25 June 2018]

This is a tough one to review. For me, the subject is horrifying, and that the country I live in would do this is sickening, though of course, the U.S. President today would probably green light this kind of human suffering in a minute, in light of his recent actions against minorities. Some 400 odd men are observed, but not cured, and the justification is for the betterment of the "race" and that those men's sacrifice would be for the greater good. Yeah, tell that to those men, who could have been cured with one shot of penicillin!

So the subject = 5 stars. But the movie isn't that great. The romance subplot is really boring and uninteresting. And the quality of both the film and the sound is poor, though that might be the disc I watched. I would say you should watch it, due to the importance of the topic, but maybe skip any dating/romance scenes between Alfre Woodard and Laurence Fishburne, two dang fine actors who could not save those scenes. Oh, and just to see and hear Ossie Davis is always worth it!

What in the World Did They Think They Were Doing??!!

[Jalea · 31 March 2003]

*spoilers*

It was hard for me to sympathize with the central character, Nurse Evers, portrayed by Woodard. I thought that she betrayed the men and was in denial. Subsequently, she was locked in because of the lying and deceit and tried to make up for it by dedicating her life to the men she helped deceived. That only resulted, however, in two more wasted lives, hers and the man that loved her.

I kept wondering, what is wrong with this woman, is she nuts or what?! As far as I am concerned with the study conflicted with their true "calling" as health care professionals. During the senate investigation Ms. Evers (Woodard) was asked "What in the world did you think you were doing??!! My sentiments, exactly.

The rather dry Tuskegee Syphilis Study presented with great care about accuracy and historical details.

[JurijFedorov · 7/10 · 2 August 2022]

About a real study with some questionable ethics. It's a complicated affair. The study started in 1932 where treatment for syphilis had little effect and had serious health risks. Penicillin became widely available in 1947 yet the study continued to not treat test subjects because they felt like the study was too important to "ruin". The study continued on quite publicly. CDC and AMA supported the study. As did African American groups like National Medical Association. It was done in a Black town with Black doctors and nurses doing much of the work. It was widely known from the start and no one was hiding it from anyone besides the patients.

Curious movie for sure. A recommended watch for various reasons. I watched the movie with a critical mind because of the topic which made it quite a bit more interesting to focus on. Several characters have different names from real life and there are story elements not taken from the basic story about the study like a romantic relationship and some internal complaints about the study. I read a bit up on the study afterwards and watched the 1992 doc, Bad Blood, and the movie is fairly correct as history movies go. I recommend the doc for sure it's essential info. Some deep research went into the movie and they mention even small elements from the story. Now, the romantic relationship between the nurse and a patient is ethically highly questionable and just boring. She was even giving people info on the experiment and at one point stealing penicillin to give to a patient herself. At the hospital she seemed to constantly whine about the study while in private she 100% defended it. Which is highly unrealistic. Real people act the opposite way you try to fit into the group. Instead she was fighting her dad, her boyfriend, the doctors, the patients. She was fighting and complaining constantly while never once backtalking anyone. Quite an unrealistic character. The character is based on Eunice Rivers Laurie. She practically did do the same nurse role in real life, but she defended the study while the movie presents her as an unwilling participant just tricked into it and then going along. But of course you have some flexibility in writing people's inner motivation. Just make sure it makes sense. People usually try to initially complain to outsiders, not their boss.

The romance between her and her patient is by far the worst part of the movie. I know I'm just a cold man. But I do like some romance if it's done really well. Casablanca, for example, is a great movie. This one on the other hand kinda just shows some dancing, kissing, and then nothing much. We never quite understand why they are showing us this or why it's relevant to the main story. But he does get penicillin shots while joining the military during WW2 so it's important in a small aspect. Curiously the boyfriend, Laurence Fishburne, plays a WW2 soldier in Tuskegee Airmen too. I feel like this movie is better though as Tuskegee Airmen was 90% about racism and not historically accurate enough for me as the racist element was extremely overdone and the battles were just cheap scenes. Should have been the opposite.

This movie has fine enough sets. It uses a lot of real Black culture like singing and dancing and even speech styles. The dancing is not that fun to watch, but I like the care that went into making it feel real. The speech styles are great, really loved how real it sounded. Everyone acts like a historical figure, not just like an arrogant modern actor. Which makes the movie work. Curiously the medical team is very small here. 1 White doctor, 1 Black doctor, and the Black nurse. In real life there were quite a few more White male doctors and Black people on the project and it was a significant government funded study for them. Of course in a movie you want to keep the character count down especially as it's adapted from a stage play and stage plays always revolve around just a few characters. There is only 1 scene at the 1:03 mark where you see the full group of Black male doctors and Black female nurses being led by the progressive White doctor while they debate the study. Besides this it felt like a mini study. The remaining characters never say or do anything.

The movie does tackle the study itself from various points of view. In a mature way even. Penicillin was later in the study made available to the wider public, but couldn't directly cure latent syphilis. These men had it for years and many doctors assumed, seemingly wrongly, it was too late for a treatment. In the movie the nurse steals penicillin and gives it to a man who is already half insane. At that point nothing much can help him live a normal life. The movie makes it seem like the disease just killed most of them off and no one was left sane or alive. In reality many lived long lives. And I can't even find anything online on how long they lived compared to the average Black man who was treated for syphilis. None of the main websites writing about the study care to go into that. And since the study started in 1932 and penicillin got popular in 1947 there may be some men who it was too late for anyhow. In the 1992 doc several patients are interviewed and they don't look sick or sound crazy unlike what the movie shows us.

The movie is fine. The romance is quite pointless. The dancing scenes are fine as they are culturally significant, but I found the dancing to be silly. The accents are great. Acting quite good. Movie overall looks aged. I like how many real life details it showed us as the script is great. But it wasn't a spectacular movie I'd watch again. Recommended if you are really interested in how the study actually went down and why it was done.

The Tragedy Of Lies

[sddavis63 · 7/10 · 24 July 2010]

This very solid movie is a recreation of the Tukseegee experiments, in which a group of African American men were lied to about receiving treatment for syphilis, and were simply allowed to die from the disease as a part of a government "study" even though a completely effective treatment (simple penicillin) had been found early on.

There's a good performance here from Alfre Woodward as Eunice Evers, the compassionate nurse who signs on to help with the treatment program and then, after the funding for the program runs out, stays with the program once it becomes a study of how the men will fare without treatment. She gets caught up in the lie, insisting to the end that something worthwhile had come out of this experiment, but throughout the movie has definite moral qualms about this which are overcome by her desire to care for the men who are dying of the disease.

It's a very sad fact that this is a true story. It's treated as a flashback, as Miss Evers testifies before a U.S. Senate Committee hearing on the experiment. The study apparently ran for forty years (beginning in 1932) and most of the afflicted men died without receiving any treatment for the disease. The closing captions tell us that the survivors and the families of those who died received financial compensation of ridiculously small amounts, and that it was not until 1997 that the United States Government (through President Clinton) actually apologized for what had been done. This is a very sad movie almost the whole way through - certainly not one that will lift your spirits, but it's an important movie about something that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

Uninvolving and uninteresting true story

[kingstinky · 6/10 · 18 December 2002]

It's been said about true stories that `you can't make that up'. Unfortunately, you could make this true story up, and in fact, you could probably turn it into a much better movie. However, Alfre Woodard does give an outstanding performance as Miss Evers, and you do begin to feel for the characters and want them to pull through. Even though some of their actions are unexplained and not believable, you find yourself sitting next to Miss Evers as she pleads her case to the court.

Yes, this story never goes anywhere that you don't expect it to. Yes, it begins flat and stays that way all the way to the end. But like it or not, this movie is an important one. It's a movie that deserves to be seen.

**/****

Response to "Pure Propaganda for the Ignorant"

[twinklevango · 10/10 · 18 February 2006]

I went to the "Spiked" website and read the article mentioned in the previous post. That article is a fancy bit of rationalization. The bottom line is you don't promise anyone hope in the face of possible death when that hope was nothing more than a lie to begin with. That is the heart and soul of why this movie is so important. It does expose a terrible lie perpetrated upon unsuspecting people. If they had been told the truth, it would have been morally different. In fact, the eventual monetary compensation the men and families received was too small for a lifetime of hopes and deception.

The article on "Spiked" only made me appreciate the movie and the excellent acting all that much more.

The acting was powerful, and it looked like a labor of love. I think everyone involved with this film must have felt the weight of purpose for getting out the truth of what had happened. It is one of the best acted, most well written movies ever and I encourage people to see it.

Excellent Movie

[Bliggle · 10/10 · 2 April 2005]

Wow!! What a real eye-opener!! I had to watch this movie for a medical bioethics class and I really learned a lot from watching it. I thought the way things were presented were done quite well. It really showed me how cruel things were back in that time frame and opened my eyes to watch things around me in the present. What a shame that this event took place. How unfair it was to these poor men and their families. It makes me appreciate even more the stand that people take on behalf of others.

I have to commend Miss Evers' for her dedication to these men and all that she tried to do to help them regardless of the consequences. It is too sad that she was not able to do more. As far as Dr. Brodus and the other Dr. goes, it is a shame that they were coerced into thinking that in just 6 mos to a year the funds would become available to give real treatment to these men.

At the end, when there were so few men left alive, I am grateful that they were compensated somewhat for the suffering they had to endure. At the same time, it saddens me that so many had to die from this horrible disease to begin with even when the medication became available.

My condolences to the families for sure and my gratitude to the AP for bringing this to the forefront.

Wonderful but incredibly sad

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 22 November 2005]

I have seen this film several times and use it as a teaching aid when I teach my high school psychology class, as it brings up issues concerning unethical treatment as well as brain disorders (in this case syphilis). The film is VERY moving and you can't help but get absorbed into the film due to its excellent writing and characterizations. About the only reason the film doesn't merit a 10 is that the background for the movie is vague and I needed to research on my own. I found that the movie was based on a play which was a fictionalized account of a true study done in the Southern US. Like the real case, the participants were lied to and told they were getting treatment. As a result, most died a long and horrible death due to a slow disintegration of the brain. The character of Miss Evers, by the way, was fictional as were the names of the other participants. However, despite this, this in no way minimizes the horror of the real-life tale. This is a sad and moving must-see film.

Inaccuracies Abound

[view_and_review · 3/10 · 12 October 2020]

A few years ago I read the book "The Tuskegee Syphilis Study" by Fred Gray and it mentioned in there how inaccurate the movie "Miss Evers' Boys" was. I finally had the opportunity to watch "Miss Evers' Boys" and I can say that it is a travesty how inaccurate it is.

"Miss Evers' Boys" would lead you to believe that a Black doctor, Doctor Sam Brodus (Joe Morton), and a Black nurse, Eunice Evers (Alfre Woodard), were in effect running a study on syphilis in Black men and how it would affect the body when untreated. They were funded by, and given direction by the U.S. government, but Dr. Brodus and Nurse Evers essentially did all the heavy lifting (including the deceptions). And the movie was very ambiguous with its protagonist Miss Evers. They tried to make her a sympathetic character while also making her the most complicit in perpetuating the lie being told to the infected men. In fact, the movie made it seem like she was pivotal in making sure the men continued to believe they were being treated when they weren't.; as though she was so unscrupulous as to know that the men were not being treated, but kept up the lie on her own accord for the sake of Science. That and proving that African Americans were just as committed to science as whites.

Fact: The men were never treated, not even once, though the movie made it seem there was treatment at the beginning.

Fact: All of the supervisors and supervising doctors were white. Dr. Brodus (real name Dr. Brady) never supervised Miss Evers (real name Miss Rivers).

Fact: This study was conceived, financed, executed, and administered by the federal government. The African American medical professionals who participated in it were victims as were the 623 African American participants (not 412).

Fact: Nurse Evers (Nurse Rivers) never had a romantic relationship with any of the patients and she never escorted any of them to juke joints, night clubs, bars, or other entertainment places. She was a professional.

This movie is beyond disappointing such that when a few of the survivors saw it in 1997 they asked that the inaccuracies be dispelled. So, what can I say good about a movie that falsely depicts a true event? Nothing. I can't say anything good, except kudos that you revealed that there was such an abominable study that lasted for 40 years.

An interesting story lived by a cast but letdown by delivery

[bob the moo · 17 November 2003]

Eunice Evers is a nurse who gets involved in treatment trials of Afro-Americans in the south for syphilis. She helps the doctors treat many hundreds of men but then the Government cuts the funding and replaces it with funding for a study that the disease works the same in blacks as much as whites. However the study removes the treatment for a set period and lets the men slowly fade away.

From the HBO stable of TV movies, I was attracted by the fact that it was based on a true story that I was not aware of, plus it had a few good actors in the lead roles. The story is potentially quite moving and I don't know why the tvm didn't manage to bring that across very well. It was told reasonably well but it never had me really touched or moved. That said the story was still quite good, even if it could easily have lost a bit of running time – the senate hearing was a good frame for telling the story. It was just a major problem for me that the film wasn't gripping and wasn't powerful, I mean, the Government sanctioned these men's deaths for the greater good – why isn't this film setting TV sets alight!?

The cast are pretty good in the main roles but not as strong in support. In support the actors mainly just do some mugging and play African-American workingmen stereotypes. Woodard is a good actress and gives a great performance in the lead. Fishburne and Morton lend support with small but important roles and the support cast have a few nice character pieces.

Overall this is an uninvolving film and I don't really understand why at all; the story is true and powerful and the cast are all reasonably good. However the film is flat for most of the telling – it's worth seeing once but it is more of a slog than it should be.

brilliant

[lucien-8 · 10/10 · 27 December 2005]

I missed the beginning of the movie and thought it was just fiction, just to find out after a few years (when Clinton announced to give an apology) that this was a true story. It was right then and there that I lost my last believe in America. The movie is brilliant and the actors did some superb work. The story gives a good view of how things could have been back then. It also shows that things happen far beyond our influence, and that we voters are not really in charge. If the story is twisted,as some say, why did they only use black people. Why did Clinton apologize? Another lie is the use of penicillin far in the fifties. Penicillin treatment started in the early forties and became standard procedure in the mid-forties. Even Al Capone was treated in penitentiary years earlier. This shows how important black people are in the USA. I know that right now these things still go on. In a few years, more black, Latino and other poor "not white" Miss Evers Boys will be discovered. Slavery never stopped. Only the methods are better disguised and refined. I hope that more of these stories will reach the world. There is way too much injustice in this world. And not only against blacks. These kind of movies raise our moral standards. Pardon my poor English.

Great movie.

[lmy1086 · 10/10 · 22 June 2006]

I had extreme doubts before watching this movie. I mean, it's a made for TV film, and I was assigned to watch it for an ethics portion of my biostatistics class.

It is hands down the best movie I've ever seen made for television (although I admit I haven't seen all that many). It has excellent acting, and it deals with the subject from an interesting point of view-- instead of coming from the eyes of a patient, it's from that of a caregiver. It's historically accurate, but it still tells a compelling story.

While it illustrates how far the United States has come (in terms of minimizing racism), it still is an example of how racism is prolonged in the media. Had this movie gotten more funding and gone to the big screen, I'm sure it would've won some awards. But I suppose America still isn't ready to face its gruesome past.

..no public response after the TV movie?..

[fimimix · 10/10 · 24 August 2006]

You would think, even people not with The NAACP (who brought the lawsuit against the federal government), would have made a very large noise about this horrific study. BUT - I was one of those uninfomed people; I had no idea the study was being conducted, and I'm from Mississippi, not TOO far from Tuskegee. I've mentioned in other comments that I was doing an exhaustive research into AIDS; I eventually got a whole room full of reports and documents from The Department of Health under the Freedom of Information Act.......some of the studies contained more than a hundred-thousand pages, including a huge one on the study of syphilis in Black males in Macon County, Alabama. I'm not really certain just when I became aware of this large-scale murder: my AIDS-research was done in the early '80s, but the Tuskegee Study ended in 1972. All of my research was done through reading several newspapers and making contact with the people who wrote them or was mentioned in them. I eventually was corresponding with scientists, researchers both American and foreign - all of the major parties involved around the world: I planned to write an expose'. I just happened to read an article about The Tuskegee Study in a newspaper; the weight of my correspondence and this shocking discovery were the main reasons why I finally gave-up.

I don't recall any loud noise about this scandal in 1972 - it's a mystery to me why I didn't know about it, or why some of the scientists I was corresponding with never mentioned it. The Senate hearings must have been very quiet, because I didn't hear didley-poop about them. As the messages at the end of "Miss Evers' Boys" state, President Clinton apologized in the '90s. This leaves me to wonder if all the presidents before him, back to 1932, knew about the study. If they did, shame on them ! Shocking ! I believe President Truman halted the whole business. "Drop the bomb, but don't fund The Tuskegee Study....."

To "smokehill_retrievers", I am appalled that you think this whole scandal was a hoax. "Google" has all the data - including "spiked". I agree with another "user" who states that ethnic discrimination is still a dark secret in this country. How dare we scream about "Darfur" and "Hotel Rwanda"? If our hypocrisy isn't being taught in OUR schools, I'm sure schools all around the world are teaching what an uninformed society we still are. Spreading democracy in Iraq?......

Joseph Sargent directed a marvelous movie, even for TV. I find no fault with it, and feel all of the cast were brilliant. Walter Bernstein wrote an outstanding script. Laurence Fishburne, the smart guy who "read the book" and got himself healed was stellar; Craig Sheffer (Dr. Douglas) and Joe Marton (Dr. Sam Brooks) did their dirty work brilliantly, to prove that "colored" people weren't physically different than anyone else; Obba Babatunde's dreams of dancing at The Cotton Club in NY City breaks the heart, still trying to dance after 40 years of untreated suffering; Ossie David (Mr. Evers) made a statement how all dads should nuture their children; E.G. Marshal was effective as the Senate-committee Chairman, as all of the rest were.

Alfre Woodman deserves an Oscar; she is the Black Bette Davis. She portrays a devoted individual who does all the ingenious dirty work to get the men enrolled; is the epitome of "the doctor knows best", when she knows better; her dramatic acting is brilliant, especially with Fishburne and the man who had reverted to voodoo to attempt to curing himself, not to mention her ethnic comedy. Her accusing the entire Congress of sweeping this monstrous scandal under the carpet for so many years, "then trying to blame me", is a scene to use a whole box of tissues on. BTW, the actual nurse's name was "Rivers". Why do we not see this lady in other film ?

Bravo! for all who had a part in this wonderful movie. Too bad that major studios in Hollywood didn't recognize this is a story that needs to be told, and then told again. Nearly the entire cast is African-American, and what a performance they all give. This movie deserves a release in major theaters, without ANY changes. There should also be a major release on DVD, but who would be alive to talk about it? The NIH in Bethesda (Maryland) is still mired in scandal over their researchers being highly paid by pharmaceutical companies to promote their drugs, and then take high-paid positions with them to keep them quiet. Disgraceful.....

I recommend this movie to everyone who is breathing - if you haven't seen it, then do - then buy it. It deserves a 20.....

Pure Propaganda for the Ignorant

[smokehill retrievers · 1/10 · 18 September 2005]

Aside from wasting the talents of several top-notch actors, the biggest problem with this movie is that it's basically a lie from top to bottom. Most of the facts presented are essentially true, but they very carefully leave out other parts to turn this into a Good vs. Evil morality play, with the Evil White Government oppressing poor black sharecroppers and purposefully killing them by withholding treatment. I'm surprised Oliver Stone wasn't doing this one.

It leaves out the fact that the only treatment for syphilis well into the 50s was arsenic, a year-long, painful treatment that hardly anyone ever finished. Its effectiveness, even when completed, was highly questionable. It also leaves out the fact that the acute, contagious syphilitics (178 of them) WERE treated, though most refused to finish the painful arsenic series. The remainder, latent noncontagious cases, were the ones followed in the study. Medically, these were almost never treated anywhere since it was too late to be effective and the majority of them would have no long-term effects anyway (no matter what you learned in Health class).

The Congressional hearings were largely just a platform for the political race wars of the time and never let real science get in the way of a good show.

I grew a bit suspicious over the whole thing because I knew one of the participants of the study, a retired Army sergeant who worked at Walter Reed. He never had a problem with the study and as a medic he certainly understood the pros and cons. As an untreated latent, it never affected his wife or five grown children, and he was in good health the last time I saw him at age 72.

For those with half a brain who are interested in the truth rather than Hollywood B.S., there is an excellent article at:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA34A.htm I's have given this a 4 for the lousy direction, but I dropped it to a 2 because I don't like being lied to by Hollywood race-baiters.

The Legacy of Miss Evers Boys

[czarsun · 16 July 2010]

Most viewers agree that the betrayal of Nurse Evers and Dr.Brodus was heinous. Regardless of whatever medical oath is taken, God's Commandments come first. And that goes for the military also. What makes Nurse Ever's and Dr.Brodus's actions more fiendish is the fact of allowing these men to live normal lives while participating in this study. Normal as being, continuing to have sexual relations with their unknowing wives, as well as other women in their community. Giving birth to children from those sexual relations in which those children entered the world infected over a 40 year period. They speak of numbers (412), but in fact , it really numbered into the thousands considering that several generations of men, woman, and children were infected through this study. In my eyes, that amounts to genocide which was sanctioned by the CDC.

Bland

[nicholas.rhodes · 5 December 2003]

I bought this together with "A Lesson Before Dying" by the same director and whilst I found the latter well-filmed, engrossing and very good on character analysis, I found Miss Evers' Boys to be a bit of a disappointment. You don't really get taken up into the story. Picture quality is hazy and fuzzy and you end up wondering really where Miss Evers was going in life ........... nowhere ! When you read the synopsis, you think you're in for a good, emotional, heart-rending story. However, that is not the impression which was conveyed to me. Miss Evers' even refuses romance, which could have been a saving grace. Why didn't she subtilise more penicillin if she was so concerned ? I tend to like these "racial" dramas, even though they are over-romanticized, but this one left me pretty near cold !