CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Runaway Christmas Bride (2017)

Director: David DeCoteau
Writer(s): Brian Skiba
Starring: Cindy Busby, Travis Milne, Mark Milburn, and Christos Shaw

Wow. One area that rarely fails to “impress” me (relatively speaking) in these mindless “merry” movies are the production values: say what you want about how terrible they are (and they are), but they're typically shot well, and have the polish and look of a “real” movie. Not this one: Runaway Christmas Bride is one of the most poorly shot anythings I've ever laid my eyes on; a fractured mess of godawful writing, acting, and directing that, were it not for the immensely appealing Cindy Busby, would probably give Christmas Coupon a run for its money as the worst holiday movie I've ever seen.

Seriously, the movie is shot almost entirely in unflattering, in-your-face close-ups, with characters' noses almost popping through the TV screen. It's absolutely jarring the first time it happens, and one of those things that's no less jarring by the hundredth time. It wasn't until about halfway through that I think I pieced together why: it apparently was shot either in a tropical climate, or in the dead middle of summer, and the close-ups—which almost always take place outside—are the filmmakers' sad attempts to cover for the fact there's not a drop of snow to be found. There are digital snowflakes that were clearly added in post-production, along with unconvincing backdrops that appear to be painted in certain scenes to give the illusion that we're looking at a snowy ski lodge, instead of a normal building in a tropical climate. (For proof of my theory, scope out the final tracking shot, which clearly reveals there's some kind of poorly-utilized filter being used to give the illusion of snow that isn't there.)

These are interspersed with scenes taking place on an actual ski slope, so it seems the production had only a limited time (somewhere around three hours, it would seem) to shoot in actual snow, and then had to fake everything else to fit those scenes. I don't know the actual backstory behind it, so this is all speculation on my part, but there's just something about this whole production that's...unnerving.

Terrible visual effects aside, it gets even worse once the story is introduced: Busby is Kate Paulson, a woman who is getting ready to marry the man of her dreams. Only, the moron reveals right before they walk down the aisle that he's basically only marrying her to get his hands on family money that pays out once he gets married. Not liking the idea of being married solely for money, she leaves him at the altar—without explaining that to anyone else, mind you, and also after the marriage is made official--and runs away to the pre-paid honeymoon suite at the ski resort that happens to be right down the road to gather her thoughts, while both sets of family members try to piece together what's happening.

Through a rather improbably series of events, all of the members of both wedding parties end up staying at the ski lodge, where they continue to hurl insults at one another, all while the freshly (and technically officially married) “bride” falls in love with a ski patrol rescuer, who seems to be made out of wood and desperately wanting to become a real man, but I think that was just his acting. It doesn't take long to see where it's all headed, with her mysterious (immediate) past as a bride eventually coming to light and throwing wood boy for a loop, before everything is happily resolved, all in the name of Christmas.

Seriously, avoid this one like the plague, lest you want to be subjected to a checklist of how not to make a Christmas movie: the jokes fall flat, there's no chemistry between anyone, Kate's dad looks like a living corpse, and the gay “roommate” provided solely for comedic relief is so annoying, you just want to see him get shot in the face. Or eaten by snow wolves. Or dropped off the highest peak of the ski lift.

Anyway, unless you're a movie masochist who derives joy out of watching the cinematic dreams of an entire cast and crew deflate before your very eyes, stay far, far away from this one.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS 

• If anyone tries arguing that this movie is good during everyday conversation, try to ease up...you must be talking to one of the cast/crewmembers relatives.
• The more I think about it, I wonder if this was shot as a non-holiday movie, and then re-purposed into one, for whatever reason; that would definitely explain the appalling shooting style.
• You know a movie's bad when the actors aren't even sure how to throw a punch.

RATING: 2.5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Rock and Roll Christmas (aka A Christmas Comeback) (2019)

Director: Max McGuire
Writer(s): Paula Rahn
Starring: Beverley Mitchell, Catherine Mary Stewart, Kelaiah Guiel, and Michael Dickson

I gotta be honest here: neither of us were really feeling a viewing of Rock n’ Roll Christmas (aka A Christmas Comeback), for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was seeing Beverley Mitchell in a leading romantic role. I mean, come on, was no one else available? Haylie Duff went straight to voicemail? Lacey Chabert wouldn’t return messages? I think it’s safe to say her peak was “7^th Heaven” all those years ago (which, let’s be honest, wasn’t really that big of a peak to begin with). There was also the focus on music, something my wife and I tend to enjoy—and considering these movies destroy almost everything they touch, we knew there was little chance this was going to turn out well. But you know what? Sometimes, these are the risks you gotta take in life, and there's always the chance it could defy expectations and turn out better than you had hoped. (And sometimes you just get sick of looking through holiday movies for five minutes and just want to move on with life).

Unfortunately, this one turned out almost exactly as we were expecting. Beverley plays Ashlyn Rose, who is one-half of an old country band known as The Roses, along with her mother, Bonnie. Of course, they had a falling out at the peak of their fame (during which they sold 22 million records), and now refuse to talk to each other. Long story short, to prevent the boredom we endured, their relationship has since faltered. Meanwhile, Bonnie’s manager—who has clearly loved her for years--organizes a surprise reunion (apparently they both believed they would be playing a solo gig), where they suck up their feelings for one another and put on a show for the paying crowd. This show goes viral, leading the pair to accept a lucrative contract to create a 3 song Christmas EP—two covers and one original track. They get the hottest producer in the field, who seems oddly available to help them at any given moment and for however long they need, to produce their tracks. Uh oh, he’s conveniently Ashlyn’s age, and used to listen to all her music! Can’t see where this is headed!

Complicating matters (or maybe easing them in this case) is Ashlyn's teenaged daughter Riley, who keeps urging her mother to make amends with Bonnie so that they can be a family again. This whole angle is pretty unconvincing, considering the feud was so intense, that Bonnie never even met her own granddaughter who, as a reminder, is now a teenager. I'd be pretty pissed off if my grandma never thought I was at least worth a visit over the complete span of my existence, but then again, I'm a living and breathing person and not some cardboard Christmas caricature. Of course, everything ends up “happy” in the end...only it's the movie's definition of that term, because you'll be cheering against half these characters, who don't deserve half of what they end up with.

The “off-puttingness” (for lack of a better, existing term) of the female leads are a shame because the men are actually really well cast, especially Michael Dickson as Bonnie’s manager, Bret. He has a suave charm about him, although it’s hard to see what he sees in a woman that’s so cold she won’t even meet her own granddaughter just because of a little parental angst. Meanwhile, Ashlyn is so boring in all facets that it's rather unbelievable a “hot” producer—who probably has single and available tail throwing themselves at him daily—would even take a second glance at her, especially as she rambles on about being a single mom with a daughter (who, young age aside, would actually probably be a better fit for him considering she seems more exciting and has more personality).

Let's get one thing straight: even the best examples of these movies are bad. Everything is far too predictable, the characters are all carbon copies of each other (to some degree), and storylines are all too neatly wrapped up. Obviously, that's the whole appeal: people want to be able to get lost in all the saccharine happiness, to forget about the drudgeries of real life for a while.

Unfortunately, the worst examples, like Rock and Roll Christmas, not only can't help you forget about the miseries that exist in real life...they actually add to them.

RATING: 2.5/10

TRAILER

Black Christmas (1974)

Director: Bob Clark
Writer(s): Roy Moore
Starring: Olivia Hussey, Keir Dullea, Margot Kidder, and John Saxon

The first time I saw Bob Clark's Black Christmas was a few year's back, when I was going through one of my “blood and gore” movie phases. Even though I'm not a huge fan of slashers in general, my friend loves them, and this is one of this favorite movies of all time, so I wanted to see what it was all about. While our tastes in movies differ quite frequently, I figured it couldn't be that bad; considering the movie's almost complete lack of blood and gore, I walked away from the viewing with the bad taste of severe disappointment in my mouth. It also ruined our friendship, as we refused to speak to each other over the incident for several months (okay, this part didn't really happen, but it could have).

Flash forward to 2019: I was in the mood for both a Christmas movie, as well as a horror one, and after browsing for far too long, eventually settled on a re-viewing of this one. This time, I would be accompanied by my lovely wife, who had never seen it before; I was also accompanied by an open mind, eager to give the film a second chance that everyone deserves...and boy am I glad I did.

The plot is actually a near-masterpiece in simplicity, with most of the action taking place entirely in one location: as the all-female residents of the Pi Kappa Sigma sorority house party down with one another for the holidays, an unseen killer hides in the shadows of the attic, coming down only to spy on—and eventually kill—the unsuspecting women, and ratcheting up the tension by placing obscene calls after each kill.

I can definitely see where the younger me was disappointed, because even by slasher standards, the gore is very weak, confined mainly to post-murder shots; considering a big part of the attention it receives, even today, is as an early example of the popular subgenre, it really heightens the expectations of gruesome and gory set-pieces. Instead, the kills in Black Christmas play second fiddle to the atmosphere, which is brilliantly ratcheted up between the intentionally-muted murders, thanks to some genuinely creepy stalking scenes (watch for the killer's shadow in the background of some shots); an excellent, atonal score from frequent Bob Clark collaborator Carl Zittrer; vulgar phone calls that pull no punches; and a gutsy ending that intentionally leaves a plethora of questions unanswered.

It's only during the times the story is forced to wander outside the house that it loses some of its momentum, and a large part of its claustrophobic atmosphere, something that's required with more frequency as the body count grows and the number of survivors starts to dwindle. One gets the feeling that the scenes outside of the house are there strictly for padding, an idea at least partially given some credit by director Bob Clark himself, who admitted that the drama between Jess and her boyfriend over what to do with an unborn child was only inserted to give the characters something to do between kills. With that kind of admittance, it's not hard to believe that virtually every other scene and character not affiliated with the sorority itself was given the same lack of attention.

Fans of traditional slasher movies and/or blood and gore will be no doubt disappointed, as I was on my first viewing, but those willing to go into the movie with Mr. Clark's own mindset—that this is a tale of psychological horror rather than a “body count” movie—will find a deliciously evil treat for the holidays.

RATING: 7.5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Holiday Heist (2019)

Director: Roger M. Bobb

Writer(s): Angela Burt-Murray
Starring: Chaley Rose, Tobias Truvillion, Phillip Edward Van Lear, and Lucien Cambric

It’s that time of the year again: time for a black Christmas movie! We were sorely let down by our last couple White Christmases, so we figured it was time to settle in and see what the “other race” had to offer.

As with any low-budget Christmas movie, we weren’t expecting much--expectations that somehow dwindled even further down once we saw that familiar MarVista logo (which I think has been updated!) invading our television screen. They stayed somewhere around “zero” when we first met our heroine: a stuck-up looking worker at a family-owned jewelry store who looked every bit as dry as she did boring. Here comes another personality-less drone of a character, in probably yet another personality-less drone of a movie, I thought to myself.

My, what a wonderful surprise this one turned out to be! It still fulfills the requirements of all holiday movies: namely, that almost everything about it has to be awful: and that starts with the plot, which finds an ex-con freshly released from jail, Devin, being forced against his will to continue with his previous, shady lifestyle by Poncho (what intimidating person names themselves after a lightweight rain jacket?!), a drug kingpin who feels our leading man still owes him some favors. Poncho assigns Devin to infiltrate and rob a local jewelry shop, because that seems like the type of target underworld gangs tend to focus on.

Of course, our pal Devin falls for the “stuck-up looking lady” from the original scene, aptly named Jade (and played by Chaley Rose, who you may recognize from “Nashville”), and whose family owns the jewelry shop (of course) that he's being forced to infiltrate. And infiltrate he does, by getting a job there, allowing him to get in good with the rest of Jade's family. Whoa, can't see where this is headed! Could he possibly be torn between his love for Jade, and the shady job he's pretty much being forced to do? (Which he can’t just come clean and explain to her in advance, because, you know...logic.) Once his shady past comes out, as we all know it has to do, will she forgive him? Or let a case of miscommunication deter her from the man that could very well be the love of her life? And what about her current boyfriend, who happens to be a cop, and who starts trying to dig up dirt on Devin? 

As expected, this one can’t (or doesn’t want to) avoid all the clichés of the dozens and dozens of Christmas tales before it, so of course there has to be a lack of communication leading to a blow-up fight, and the aforementioned cop boyfriend who suddenly turns evil, just so we can cheer for him to get kicked to the curb. Aside from one of Jade's friends, who is occasionally funny as the “loud black woman” stereotype, much of the story is also played straight, which treads dangerous waters for these types of movies, considering you can never take them too seriously.

But the cast is likable enough, and the two leads have enough chemistry, to carry the tired, poorly-written story over the finish line. It's nowhere near a “classic” in any sense of the term, but it's above-average enough to be a valid time-waster for those looking for a bit of uplifting holiday schmaltz.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: 2nd Chance for Christmas (2019)

Director: Christopher Ray

Writer(s): Danny Max and Scott Thomas Reynolds

Starring: Brittany Underwood, Vivica A. Fox, Jonathan Lipnicki, and Tara Reid (ugh)

Well, it’s official: we’ve hit that part of the year where all of these holiday movies are starting to blend together, and it’s getting harder and harder to differentiate one blob of mush from another—even within 24 hours. I think this is one of the signs of Sappy Movie Overdose (SMO) and it’s only going to get worse and worse the closer to the holidays we get.

Anyway, as the title implies, this is yet another example of a character getting a second chance at life, only this one is slightly more forgivable than many others, because it’s actually marketing itself as a take on “A Christmas Carol”. In it, seasoned Lifetime vet Brittany Underwood plays Chance Love (wow, subtle), a popular singer (again with the music theme!) who also happens to be a huge cunt. I’m talking, she’s probably one of the least likable characters in the history of Lifetime movies, using her status as a social symbol as an excuse to shit on everyone around her to an insane degree, without so much as a shred of remorse.

She’s managed by her longtime friend, who clearly is in love with her, and who has stuck by her side through thick and thin for several years. But she doesn't treat him any differently - in fact, he may get it even worse, such as the time she refuses to allow him time off to visit his dying mother. Yeah, this is the level of cunt we're dealing with here, and somehow we're supposed to cheer not for this man to drive an ice pick through her skull, but for them to actually get together? At the very least, it’s common sense that she will have to learn the errors of her ways, so she is visited by the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present, and Future, in the hopes that it will scare her into becoming a better person.

Really, this is a case of the writers going overboard with the material, and taking things way too far: Chance is such a super-bitch, that she’s virtually beyond redemption; by the time she finally sees the error of her ways (she’s still making excuses and standing up for herself as late as the Ghost of Christmas Future) you’re no longer wanting her to change, you want her mangled body to turn up in a ditch somewhere. 

Alas, she has a completely unconvincing about-face and does the required 180-degree spin from cold, heartless bitch to loving, warm companion all within a span of about five onscreen minutes, but by that time, the damage has been done. That’s quite unfortunate, because there are some things to like: Aside from his inexplicable loyalty to a woman bereft and unworthy of any human sympathy, Kristos Andrews is good as Chance’s manager/punching bag, and the ghosts are uniformly the most likable, humorous characters in the whole affair (even Vivica A. Fox seems to be relishing her role as “Death”, and looks legit creepy at times in the role, thanks to some rather heavy visual effects.)

But watching this, I was constantly reminded of a quote from the great Dennis Reynolds, a character from the classic American sitcom “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”: “This isn’t ‘will they or won’t they’…this is ‘I know they won’t, and I don’t want them to!’” Only, in this case, against the wishes of everyone watching, you know they will.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Not only do these movies borrow plots from each other almost verbatim, but they also steal titles: hence the reasoning for the bizarre "2nd" format in the title, probably as a means to differentiate itself from last year's unrelated Second Chance Christmas.
• Why does Tara Reid have to show up everywhere in these movies? She's probably the single biggest buzzkill for everything, and delivers her lines with the same disinterested monotone delivery whether she's supposed to be shocked, or excited. Her career should actually be below holiday movies at this point.

OVERALL: 4/10

TRAILER

Anna and the Apocalypse (2017)

Director: John McPhail
Writer(s): Alan McDonald and Ryan McHenry
Starring: Ella Hunt, Malcolm Cumming, Sarah Swire, and Paul Kaye

Just about every time my wife and I decide to watch a movie, that begins another set of specific decisions that often take longer than the movie itself: What genre? What style? Something funny, or serious; scary or lighthearted? Violent or not? The list goes on and on until, inevitably, a fight breaks out, and we finally just settle on something neither of us really care to watch all that much.

And that’s what made Anna and the Apocalypse such a refreshing change of pace: the moment I read it, I decided we were watching it. (While that came off as controlling, it was simply because my wife was at work, and I knew it was something that would be just as down her alley as it was mine.) A Christmas-themed zombie-holiday musical? How in the world could that possibly fail?

The plot is simple: as members of a high school rehearse for a Christmas play, under the watchful eye of the evil, aptly-named Arthur Savage, who also happens to be both the play’s director and school’s vice-principal, a zombie attack occurs in real life, leaving the school’s inhabitants to fend for themselves. As we can gather from the title, the focus is on Anna, a cute teenager who had a much-publicized fling with a cocky student, much to the chagrin of her best friend, John, who not-so-secretly wants her.

The whole project reminds one of the Hulu show “Freakish”, if that were written and directed by people with actual talent, and with random musical numbers thrown in for good measure. I say that not to poke fun at that awful show (although I did), but because that’s the feeling I got during the school scenes—even the sets look very similar (although I guess all schools look pretty similar on the inside). There’s also the movie’s similar focus not on the zombies, but on the characters themselves, who are all normal teenagers going through “normal” issues all on their own, to some extent.

It has all the makings of a true Christmas classic—and maybe even a zombie classic—but it's partially done in by just how serious it takes itself. The musical numbers are upbeat and lively, and there's a good amount of humor, but it inflicts a lot of pain on its characters, both physical and emotional, to the extent that, despite all the polish and razzmatazz, it all just stops being fun. I was reminded, at least in story arc, of American Pie, a movie that also wanted to explore emotional themes, and apparently felt the best vessel for that was in a movie that featured a character fucking an apple pie. The same idea holds true here: are people really going to go into a sing-song zombie movie wanting, or expecting, to come out feeling somewhat depressed?

The production values are obvious here, with great choreography in the dance sequences, polished music tracks, and solid acting across the board, especially from Ella Hunt as Anna, and a deliciously over-the-top Tony Kaye as Arthur Savage. Unfortunately, it seems to have the same identity issues as many of the characters it portrays, trying to do too many things in order to appeal to as many kinds of people as possible. It's like the intelligent geek who refuses to accept his seat at the nerd table, and instead desperately attempts to fit in with the popular bunch—and we all know how that ends up.

RATING: 6.5/10

TRAILER

3615 Code Pére Noël (aka Game Over; Dial Code: Santa Claus; Deadly Games; Hide and Freak) (1989)

Director: René Manzor
Writer(s): Manzor
Starring: Brigitte Fossey, Louis Decreux, Patrick Floersheim, and Alain Lalanne (as Alain Musy)

The perfect movie for the Scrooge in your life.

3615 Pere Noel first came to my attention late last year (2018), when some publications mentioned it was a darker version of Home Alone…made one year before that holiday classic. Even though it seemed to garner attention in the media, I still couldn’t find a way to watch it…until this year, when those darlings at Shudder finally made it available for all to see.

But let’s just get one thing out of the way, for those of you who go into a viewing of the movie with the same mindset my wife and I did, expecting a mostly-lighthearted holiday romp: this movie is unrelentingly grim. It’s not very violent, per se, but it almost seems to revel in breaking the spirit of its characters, whether it be an adult, an elderly man, or even a child—the end result is a film that’s every bit as heartbreaking as it is intense.

Alain Musy is Thomas, a particularly smart 9-year-old who is left at home on Christmas Eve with his ailing grandfather, while his mother goes off to work as manager of a department store. The family is apparently atrociously rich, as they live in a ridiculous castle-style mansion, complete with caretakers who live on the premises. She is only supposed to be gone for a few hours, but that’s as long as it takes for Thomas to get into trouble thanks to their Minitel system, France’s early version of the internet: he enters an early version of a chat room, attempts to make contact with Santa Claus, and instead gets the attention of a ne’er-do-well, who attempts to get the kid’s address before the connection is dropped.

What he does learn, however, is that the kid’s mother works for Printemps, a popular French department store; the vagabond wanders his way over there to apply for a job as Santa Claus, gets it, and then is promptly fired by Thomas’s mother after smacking a kid in the face (in his defense, the child did kind of deserve it). He goes to the personnel department to finalize the termination, when he overhears the worker—who conveniently has his back turned to the door—mention details about Thomas being home alone while is mother is at work. He hops in the back of a Printemps van, and hitches a ride to the unwitting child’s home, at which point he kills the delivery driver, in a scene that removes all doubts about his intentions.

Thomas isn’t just some normal kid, however: he’s a huge fan of action movies, and spends his free time playing “war” with his lovable dog, J.R., and keeping his diabetic, nearly-blind grandfather entertained by using him as target practice. He’s going to need all of his smarts and cunning to outwit a madman who seems hellbent only on terrorizing and murdering anyone he can…

It's a fairly thin setup, which all-too-conveniently feeds the madman all the information he needs to know—from several unrelated sources—and without anyone so much as even noticing he's around, but hey, it's a horror movie, so I suppose it's par for the course.

The movie definitely earns its comparisons to Home Alone in parts—mainly the beginning and end—but the frequent use of the term “fun” to describe this movie by many critics and cinemagoers alike make me wonder if we saw the same movie. Sure, there are some stand up and cheer moments when Thomas gains the upper hand on the intruder, but that sense of fun is destroyed in the many sequences where he displays genuine fear…an almost fourth-wall breaking taboo that really brings the film closer to reality than I was expecting (and, in some ways, hoping for). Ditto that for Thomas’ childlike sense of wonder, which remains intact, despite his unusually high IQ, leading to some rather sad scenes of anguish when his world—and everything he believes in--starts crumbling around him, including the murder of his own dog right in front of him as he hides under a table waiting for Saint Nick to arrive…this clearly isn’t a movie with “fun” on its mind.

Assuming you can shift gears, though, or that you're actually prepared for what you're in for, this is an occasionally brilliant horror tale that definitely deserves the attention it’s been garnering lately. POV scenes of legally-blind grandpops struggling to make out shapes and figures lend some credibility, and intensity, to the proceedings, while the motives of the evil Santa Claus are just as depressing as everything else in this bleak, anti-Christmas thriller.

Supposedly, the director, Rene Manzor, sued the producers of Home Alone for “ripping off” his idea. Whether that was more of a marketing stunt than an actual defense of his own material is debatable, but it's certainly unfortunate that this little gem of a movie has fallen into relative obscurity while little Kevin McCallister, and much of the cast and crew, have probably pulled in enough royalties to comfortably retire.  

RATING: 7.5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Santa Girl (2009)

Director: Blayne Weaver
Writer(s): Patricia Harrington
Starring: Jennifer Stone, Devon Werkheiser, Barry Bostwick, and McKayla Witt

There are retarded plots, and then there's the plot of Santa Girl, which threatens to usurp them all. Blending Amish and other religious customs, with Christmas (?), it tells the story of a girl, who is allowed to leave her home to go to college. That doesn't sound too bizarre, does it? Well, as the title implies, that girl is Santa's daughter, and the heir to his sleigh when he retires...which is pretty overboard, but also just the tip of the iceberg.

Complicating matters is the fact that our girl, Cassie Claus, is being forced to marry Jack Frost's son, the cleverly named Jack Frost, Jr., as a way to strengthen the image of both families, despite her clear reluctance to do so. This reluctance becomes even stronger when she meets Sam, a fellow classmate who takes an immediate liking to her. Oh, and she also meets JR, another good-looking classmate who also seems to be very interested...and so the “love” triangle begins. But is everyone who they say they are...?

Honestly, we both went into this expecting to hate every minute of it, but it's really not half bad, thanks to some inspired touches (like making Santa Claus a complete dick to everyone around him), and some likable performances from Jennifer Stone, as Cassie (who basically just gets to be as over-the-top as she was on “Wizards of Waverly Place”), and Devon Werkheiser, as Sam, who comes off as the more grounded character. There are even some genuine moments of humor, Jack Frost is legitimately creepy, and the chemistry between the two leads is charming.

It just wouldn't be a holiday movie if there weren't some annoying downsides, and as usual, the obligatory “fight between the two love interests” is one of them, where a minor situation that could easily be explained blows up into ridiculous proportions, unnecessarily separating our two lovers simply for the sake of drama (and at the expense of logic, though I suppose if you're watching a movie about Santa Claus's daughter going to college for a dose of reality before taking over the family business, then logic really needn't apply). Joshua Cody as Jack Frost, Jr. is terribly miscast, delivering his lines with the same conviction as a piece of lumber, and sharing no chemistry with Ms. Stone whatsoever; it's clear he was hired based solely on looks (or as a favor for a friend).

At any rate, this turned out to be an unexpectedly enjoyable romp through the holiday season, and while its overbearing stupidity won't win over any non-fans of this kind of Christmas fluff, it's a worthwhile watch for the millions of fans who eagerly suck in this type of holiday junk.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Same Time, Next Christmas (2019)

Director: Stephen Herek
Writer(s): Karen Bloch Morse
Starring: Lea Michele, Charles Michael Davis, Nia Vardalos, and George Newbern

It's pretty well-known that the plots in these holiday movies are always awful; it almost seems as if the writers are trying to intentionally sabotage the material, attempting to come up with the most far-fetched ideas that can still follow the tried and true formulas required of these saccharine gagfests. (Why doesn't someone just go as far out as possible and make A Sharknado Christmas, or some shit? That's about where we're headed at this rate.) It's just an accepted piece of Christmas flicks: the plot will be horrible, and so will everything else...but you know it will end up happy. And I guess just that last part is all that's needed to ensure the crowds will flock to watch the dozens of holiday movies released every year.

Even despite this knowledge, there is the occasional movie that's actually done in by its stupid plot, and Same Time, Next Christmas is one of them. And that's a shame, because it actually offers up a great cast of characters, above par acting (even Lea Michelle, who I can't really stand, turns in a serviceable performance), and several moments of intended comedy. That's right, completely intentional! In other words, it's almost the perfect Christmas comedy, only held up by a plot that fails even under the lightest scrutiny.

Olivia Anderson has been going to the beach every year for Christmas with her family for as long as she can remember. Through these vacations, they become good friends with the Williams', another family that happens to do the same thing. Olivia hits it off with Jeff, the Williams' lone son, and the two look forward to seeing each other during their annual treks. But the annual visit after they share their first kiss, the Williams family is nowhere to be seen, and Olivia doesn't hear a word from the man she fell in love with. (Turns out he was dealing with some personal family issues, which completely excuses him ignoring her calls and texts for several months...right?)

Flash forward some odd years: Olivia is now grown up, and still doing the vacation routine with her family. And wouldn't you know it, after not seeing or hearing from him for years, he shows up with his family at that same vacation spot once again. But of course things have to be complicated: he is married, which kind of throws a wrench in their plans.

We fast forward to the next year, where another issue prevents them from getting together, and then another year, and then another year...there's at least the span of six years here, and with all of it taking place on the island, it strongly insinuates these people don't keep in contact at all outside of their annual trips. Maybe in the '70s this plot could have worked in a “shut your brain down and don't think about it” kinda way, but in this day and age when you can contact anyone you want with the press of a button, and considering just how "close" these people seem to be on vacations, it's just beyond the limits of acceptability (with Olivia's mom even pushing her to date Jeff; so they never ever talked about it at home?).

It also goes so far as to make Olivia a terrible character, as she strings along a man (who aside from being too caught up in work to an annoying degree, actually isn't that bad of a person at all) that she clearly doesn't have strong feelings for, just so she has someone in her life. Of course, given the season and the confines of this movie, it's supposed to be cute, but it doesn't really take much digging to see the darkness of a character who accepts a marriage proposal from a man she has no interest in being with, only so that she can back out of it a day before the wedding and for no other reason than she finally builds up the courage to tell him she would rather be with someone else. And of course, so that we can't tell she's a piece of shit person doing a really shitty thing to a not bad person, he takes it admirably and without so much as a question. Mmmm, okay.

In the end, part of me actually wants to recommend it for the interplay between the characters, which comes off as way more genuine than it should in a movie like this: the cast seems to be having fun, and the chemistry between the many couples is believable. Unfortunately, the thin thread connecting all these characters ruins what could have been a holiday “classic”, and it becomes one of those movies that's more grating than entertaining.

RATING: 5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas in the Heartland (2017)

Director: Harvey Lowry
Writer(s): Dave Matheny
Starring: Sierra McCormick, Brighton Sharbino, Bo Derek, and Shelley Long

Oh my…there’s a lot going on during Christmas in the Heartland’s overblown running time (nearly TWO FULL HOURS!) and none of it is really good. It starts with a flimsy foundation—a stupid story that only gets dumber and dumber the farther it goes along—adds in a few too many “twists” and diversions, and despite a convoluted story, still ends up every bit as dull as it was when it started.

Jessie Wilkins is a broke teenager who is meeting her grandmother for the very first time. Kara Gentry is also meeting her grandparents for the very first time, but she just so happens to belong to a rich family. The two of these opposite-sides-of-the-tracks girls—who just met seconds before, mind you--happen to sit next to each other on the plane, and concoct a harebrained scheme to pretend to be one another, for no other reason than complete and utter boredom.

But these aren't some cunning girls planning some in-depth, complex hijinx: they literally just swap their names, because the idea that no one in either family has seen pictures of their own granddaughter in this age of virtually boundless consumer technology, is pretty logical. Oh, and no one seems to notice the many times each girl answers to the “wrong” name—a pretty dead giveaway that would be a red flag to anyone, except the stupid characters in this movie.

Really, Christmas in the Heartland's biggest flaw—besides sucking—is that it tries to pack too much into a story that doesn't really need it. There's the rich stuck-up mother who uses her husband and will do anything to gain more attention; the stuck-up boyfriend who “loves” Jessie because he believes she's rich; the black housekeeper (why does she have to be black?) with a big heart; the bully kid who's “put in his place” by one of the girls, who acts like “one of the guys” to do it; the father searching for his daughter (and the only one that knows what she looks like, apparently) that threatens to blow apart the facade; the lead singer from Rascall Flats (yes, for real) who is creepy and plays the “poor” girl's father; a poor family who has to raise money to save the family farm, or something...I mean, virtually any overplayed plot point can be found here, pulled off with very little zest or emotion, and some overall terrible acting that does it no favors.

Ironically, as bad as the whole thing is, there are a couple of characters that avoid it from being completely unwatchable (and no, neither of the leads are one of them): Bo Derek's sleazy rich villainess, Elsa, is an unabashed piece of shit, and plays the role with apparent ease; Christoper Rich (Brock from the “Reba” sitcom I'll admit to enjoying in the past) as Bob, Elsa's frustrated husband, lends some empathy and compassion to his character, and gives the movie a good guy that's worth cheering for; and Tisha Bradford manages to shine in a stereotypical role as June, the rich family's black housekeeper.

The rest is just a terminal, bloated bore that takes an already stupid idea, and somehow manages to make it even stupider.

RATING: 3/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Sweet Mountain Christmas (2019)

Director: David Weaver
Writer(s): Brian Sawyer and Gregg Rossen
Starring: Megan Hilty, Marcus Rosner, Teryl Rothery, and Kate Isaac

What’s with the sudden influx of music-themed holiday movies? Or have they always been around, and I’m just starting to notice them all at once?

Laney Blu (a name more befitting of a porn star than a country musician) is a former country star whose last two albums have flopped; as a result, she’s being “rebranded” as a pop star, in a desperate attempt to reconnect with her dwindling audiences. Given the fact she appears to be pushing forty, it’s both sadder and more pathetic than it probably should be. She wants to visit her mother—whom she hasn’t seen for quite some time—for Christmas, but her strict schedule only allows for a single night stay a couple days before the holiday. Oh, and of course, it’s in a very, very small town.

While there, she bumps into an old flame, who now pretty much happens to run the entire village, and learns the hard way that true love never peters out. Conveniently—and despite no actual footage of falling snow to be found anywhere—a massive snowstorm renders an escape from her past impossible…but also threatens to derail her hopes to stay relevant in the music industry. Will she forego all the fame and stardom for another chance at love? Or decide that…eh, I’m not even going to waste the time coming up with another option.

This one doesn’t have the required laughs and charm contained in the “best” examples of these kinds of movies, but the two leads are cute together, and—in an absolute rarity—there aren’t really any characters that are super annoying (save for Janine, who basically despises Laney just for being successful, but is thankfully rarely around). Even the two ones that would have some reason to: Lori, Laney’s former singing partner (and the love interest’s sister), who Laney suddenly left once her own career started taking off; and Danny, Laney’s long-time manager, go against type, and are surprisingly warm-hearted characters who both genuinely seem to care about Laney, albeit in different ways (what, no love triangle?).

The “side” plot where Laney decides to find talent for the local talent show, which not only happens to be taking place while she’s staying there, but also in an apparent snowstorm so bad that she can’t even leave the city, adds an unnecessary layer of absurdity and ridiculousness to a movie that already had plenty of it. In other words, this one is as stupid as the rest of them, at least from a writing perspective. And it seems to take itself way too seriously, which is a dangerous game when it comes to these types of movies, where most people are just going to pick it apart to make fun of it.

But these issues aside—which are typically fatal flaws in the hands of other movies—still take a backseat to the cast, who are competent—and believable--enough to inject the film with a contagious sense of holiday happiness, despite being caricatures caught up in one big, all-too-familiar cliché.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

NOTE: Literally no trailers of this movie exist, so here's a video of the stars attempting to see who can create the cutest holiday wreath.

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: A Christmas in Vermont (2016)

Director: Fred Olen Ray
Writer(s): Michael Varrati and Fred Olen Ray, based on a story by Jeffrey Schenck and Peter Sullivan
Starring: Abigail Hawk, Chevy Chase, David O'Donnell, and Howard Hesseman

Here we have a movie produced by Fred Olen Ray, who directed softcore porn for two decades before making the sudden switch to Christmas movies (no joke!); he was also responsible for the Lifetime “thriller” Deadly Shores, which was somehow even worse than the average Lifetime movie—and that's saying a lot. It also stars a woman who is not conventionally attractive which—let's be honest here, and as shallow as it is—is sometimes the only thing that gets us through to the end of some of these holiday duds (never underestimate the strength of an attractive cast, a notion that's magnified when everything else around them is terrible). Then, there's the tired plot, in which said woman works for a heartless boss who wants to close down a business in a small Vermont town just days before Christmas. No way she'll have a change of heart and fall in love with the owner, who happens to be an attractive man around her age! Still not sold on its awfulness? Did I mention that the boss is played by Chevy Chase, who looks like a balloon version of himself, is notoriously difficult to work with (in general), and whose best comedic days are behind him? Clearly, this movie sucks...right?

But this is also the season of miracles, and that is the only explanation I can convince myself of as to why A Christmas in Vermont not only isn't groan-inducingly awful, but a genuinely good example of a holiday movie. I mean, sure, technically after watching it, I can tell you why it's not bad: The acting is uniformly above par all around, the characters are more fleshed out than normal, and Chevy Chase is genuinely hilarious in a role that he probably had no interest in doing. Even by the end, the “unattractive” (which, to be fair, I never actually said) female lead, Abigail Hawk (who I just discovered is known for her role as a lead character is the godforsakenly awful "Blue Bloods", a staple as background noise in the homes of those aged 65 and up) is adorable, thanks to the personality she lends her character, and the conviction with which she plays her part. It's not really any of those things that are shocking in and off themselves, but given the “talent” involved, it's baffling to me how all of those things came together on this set, resulting in a movie full of genuine charm that, at least on paper, shouldn't even be watchable.

It's definitely not perfect: Morgan Fairchild (yes, that one!) is completely wasted as the lead dude's mom, a role that there is absolutely no need for. I'm also still waiting for that Christmas movie that has the nerve to avoid some of the more annoying tropes, such as the “overheard quote taken out of context that leads to the sudden argument between the yuletide couple just as things seem to be going perfectly”; unfortunately, we're still treated to that here. But such moments are at least offset by caring characters, such as the “wise old man” (again, usually the most annoying character in every movie, but not so here), who come off less as the caricatures they've become from appearing in so many of these tired tales, and more like genuine people. Who knew it was actually possible to laugh at a Christmas movie when you're supposed to, and that there could be joy derived from means other than making fun of the incompetence in which they were made?

In the end, A Christmas in Vermont succeeds when it shouldn't, by showing what can happen when a mismatched cast and crew can come together to create a cohesive whole; it's mind-boggling, and perhaps an even more inspiring testament to the magic of the holiday season than the story itself.

RATING: 7.5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas Coupon (2019)

Director: Daniel Knudsen
Writer(s): Knudsen
Starring: Courtney Mathews, Aaron Noble, Robert Laenen, Sheena Monnin

I'm just going to come out and say it: Christmas Coupon is the worst fucking Christmas movie ever made. Well, to be more technically accurate, it's the worst one I've ever seen, but the thought that there might be something worse out there is almost enough to make me never watch holiday movies again, lest I actually stumble upon one. It's the first movie I've ever seen that's also lead to physical side effects: my holiday-obsessed wife and I couldn't even get aroused for 12 hours after viewing. And, as she declared in all honesty immediately after we fast-forwarded through the final twenty minutes to get to the end: “This just completely sucked the holiday spirit from me.”

It follows a former world-champion figure skater named Alison Grant, who has now resorted to teaching figure skating lessons on a frozen pond. One day, her ex-boyfriend—a semi-handsome man named Ivan Hall—brings his niece to class, and they hit it off. Well, “hit it off” as in have a bitter argument with each other. Of course, by the end, they will fall for each other—even though I've seen more chemistry in police beatings, and, even though Alison already has a long-term boyfriend. Seriously, the dialogue and interactions are so baseless that it actually creates an unnerving atmosphere, rather than one of holiday happiness—like the two leads are being held at gunpoint off-camera, forced to make their relationship work, or else they will be blown to smithereens. I'm halfway tempted to give them the money to reshoot that version.

The movie careens from one idea to the next with no natural flow—it's as if the writer just wanted to cram in as many holiday tropes as possible, without even contemplating things like “believability” or “narrative”. Take the title, for example, which is one of the most hilariously ridiculous titles in holiday history; the inspiration for the title takes place in one scene, and is never recalled again until the end, where it, of course, plays a role in bringing the two feuding lovers back together. Again, did I mention that Alison already has a boyfriend? Typically in these movies, they make it "okay" for the main character to break up with their significant other, by portraying him as a monster, or a cheater, or someone who's no good. Here, though, they forget to even do that: sure, he's kind of a dick, and he doesn't really believe in her, but he actually comes off as more of the victim here, as Ivan is everywhere Alison is every time the boyfriend comes around. So he has every right to act angry, which he does so with all the conviction of someone to whom "anger" is a foreign concept.

Please, please, please, for the love of God, do not see this, unless you want your soul to be forever ruined. This isn't some “reverse psychology” thing, either: it's an honest-to-God plea. Jesus is probably rolling around in his...heaven. It's the worst holiday anything I've ever seen in my entire life. It's one of those movies that's too amateurish to even work as an unintentional comedy: the editing is poor (dig those jump cuts), the music is bland, and the writing is absolutely abysmal. That it comes from a “faith-based” studio is both the ultimate irony, and completely unsurprising.

RATING: 0/10.

TRIVIA: The incompetent director plays an equally incompetent priest, who gets minor points only for slightly resembling Rickety Cricket, the disgraced priest from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

TRAILER

6 Films to Keep You Awake: The Baby's Room (2006)

Director: Alex de la Iglesia
Writer(s): de la Iglesia and Jorge Guerricaechevarría
Starring: Javier Gutiérrez, Leonor Watling, Sancho Gracia, and María Asquerino

With some intense back pain keeping me home from work and vastly limiting my mobility, I decided to kill some time via a movie. My wife, who watches most of the films that I review with me, was more interested in getting some other things accomplished, so I was left to my own devices. After a brief search of the films on my “to watch” list, I finally settled on one that my wife has strictly assured me she would never, ever want to watch.

That film was The Baby's Room, a TV movie directed by Alex de la Iglesia as part of the "6 Films to Keep You Awake" series, who some will remember for helming such films as Day of the Beast and Accion Mutante. His films always have some elements of humor throughout, no matter what genre he is dabbling in, and The Baby's Room is no exception, though thankfully most of the comedy falls on the backburner once the suspense starts ratcheting up.

Juan (Javier Gutiérrez) and Sonia (the beautiful Leonor Watling, who I am pretty sure I fell in love with just from watching her here) are an established couple with a new baby boy, who have just moved into a large house. Their relationship is so perfect that Sonia is actually concerned about how smooth everything is going, which makes for some rather obvious foreshadowing that things won't be great for long. One day, Juan's parents make an unannounced visit, and drop off a box full of stuff for the child; at the bottom of the box are two baby monitors (an item that Juan, curiously, has never heard of or even knew existed).

The couple set them up, happy to have peace of mind, without the added inconvenience of having to get up every time they hear the baby cry. At first, the couple hear weird noises, which could be attributed to any number of things: the baby shifting, for example. Then comes the unmistakable sound of a human voice. Terrified, Juan arms himself with a piece of wood and rushes into the baby's room—only to find his baby, crying because Juan has just turned on the light to his room.

Who did that voice belong to? It quickly becomes an obsession for Juan to find out. He upgrades the monitors to infrared video, and in a rare creepy scene, catches a static figure with glowing eyes staring at the camera while sitting next to his son. He is terrified. Sonia would be, too, if this weren't one of those frustrating situations in movies where Sonia never sees what Juan sees, and so she just thinks he is crazy. And since no one else at his job is willing to believe that there are ghosts keeping him awake and making him late to work every day, they think he is crazy, too.

Then he catches a break. He sees an old photo of his house, and notices that a window has been boarded up. He looks at the wall through the baby monitor, which is his ticket to the other world, and sees there is a door knob there. He turns it, and enters into a hidden room, which we later learn to be a portal of sorts to the “real” world. By unsealing it, he has now unwittingly opened up the possibility that the ghosts that have been stuck inside the house may now “break out” and run free into the real world. And this is about the time that it pretty much derails itself, rebounding just in time to deliver a good, though rather expected, ending.

Apparently, the “6 Films To Keep You Awake” series were six (of course) films made by well-respected Spanish directors, specifically for Spanish television, and now I suppose having reviewed one, I am obligated at some point to take a look at the rest. Unfortunately, this one was so disappointing overall that I have little interest in continuing, at least any time soon, especially considering this one is generally regarded as one of the better ones.

The story gets off to a relatively quick start (and the 80 minute run-time is probably mainly to thank for that), but the deja vu also sets in almost immediately. This is a story we have seen a thousand times before; the only difference are the actors, one of whom is drop-dead gorgeous. The wife first thinks the husband is crazy, then thinks he is a threat to their child, and the perfect family quickly starts to unravel. There are a couple of genuinely creepy scenes, and the monitor idea is pretty cool (he can only see the “ghosts” through the infrared screens), but there's otherwise nothing gripping or interesting about it, save for Leonor Watling's plainly gorgeous face. In other words, seasoned horror vets can probably shut it off at the half-hour mark, and already know, within a general outline, what happens the rest of the way, save for just how natural Watling looks while holding a child, and how I would have gladly raised the child with her in her husband's absence, had she asked me.

If the other tales are similar, I don't think this series will keep you awake so much as lull you into a deep sleep.

RATING: 4.5/10

TRAILER

NOTE: I unfortunately can't find individual trailers for each film in the series, so here's a trailer for the entire series as a whole.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019)

Director: Andrè Øvredal
Writer(s): Dan and Kevin Hageman, and Guillermo del Toro, from a story by Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton. Based on the books by Alvin Schwartz.
Starring: Zoe Margaret Colletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush, and Dean Norris

I can't think of another book series that summed up my childhood more than the “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” trilogy. The stories were pretty creepy on their own, but it was the infamous illustrations by Stephen Gammell that took them from merely creepy, to utterly terrifying. And it wasn't just me that thought that: so frightening are the images, that after years of increasing scrutiny, the books were re-issued with less disturbing artwork to appease the apparently growing number of concerned parents. (And were then re-issued with the original artwork when there was a growing number of protests to the new images in a rather odd about-face).

Naturally, when I heard they were going to be adapted into a movie, I was pretty leery of the whole idea, and the more and more information that came out did little to alleviate that (not an anthology, PG-13, etc.). This wasn't just a movie, this was more or less a piece of my childhood that was going to be displayed on the big screen. And when that happens, no matter how hard you try, it's virtually impossible to head into it with an unbiased viewpoint. This is material I have sifted over dozens of times, with both words images that have been permanently ingrained in my memory from so many years before.

The one thing it had going for it was the director, Andre Øvredal, the man responsible for Troll Hunters and the Autopsy of Jane Doe, both of which are fantastic examples of the fantasy/horror genres, respectively. I still wasn't completely sold on the idea that even he could pull it off, but he was a better pick than just about everyone else that sprang to mind.

The thin plot finds a group of teenagers who sneak into a haunted house, and discover a book written by the previous tenant: a girl named Sarah Bellows who was tortured, and used that trauma as motivation to turn her life into a book of scary stories. Of course, the teens find the hidden chamber housing the book, and double of course the leader of the group, a redhead girl named Stella, decides to take the book home; this doesn't sit too well with Sarah's restless, vengeful spirit. As the helpless kids will soon discover, the twisted tales did not end after her death, and one-by-one they find themselves starring in stories written by a vengeful ghost from beyond the grave, from which there seems to be no escape...

As much as I despise the idea of using the stories within a linear narrative, rather than as separate stories in an anthology, there are moments in Øvredal's film when he really manages to make the idea work. Actually, he makes it work for about the first hour, with a variety of the familiar tales I read so much as a kid playing out in sometimes surprisingly gruesome ways (at least, as far as PG-13 rated films are concerned). The problem is that once the focus on the individual stories is gone, and the threadbare story connecting them all together—in other words, what should be the “filler” story--takes center stage, it doesn't take long for the project to sputter to a grinding halt...and unfortunately at that point there's still somewhere around an hour left.

And boy is that last hour a chore to sit through, giving me ample time to piece together a comprehensive list of some of the things that went wrong. Here's a list of some of the more egregious issues:

• The looseness of the story adaptations. You would think that being based on a book where the stories are literally only two or three pages, on average, the stories could at least be accurately adhered to. But, very few are straightforward adaptations: many of the stories are blended together, almost completely reworked, or even incoherent as-is. For example, a chapter on “The Haunted House” is started near the end, but is nothing at all like the actual “Haunted House” story from the book. In an even weirder “twist”, the terrifying creature from “The Haunted House” story appears as the ghost looking for her lost toe in “The Big Toe”, which is a completely separate story. Huh? Why?

• Confusing target demographics. Most movies play to their audiences, which is no secret. But what is confusing is just who this movie happens to be targeting: the PG-13 rating certainly suggests a teenaged crowd, but the original source material will probably be lost on most of them (which might be a good thing, as they have nothing to compare them to). Meanwhile, the nearly two-hour run time will make it a marathon for just about any possible target audience it's trying to win over. Making matters more confusing is the dark material, gross effects, and shocking number of swear words that honestly make things feel like it's literally one drop of blood away from an “R” rating. It's like that friend that so desperately wants to be liked by everyone that they adhere to everyone else's thoughts of them, rather than being their own person. What they should have done—and maybe they have—is make a PG-13 theatrical cut, and then have an R-rated version for DVD; considering producer Guillermo del Toro has pretty much stated from the outset they were going for a PG-13 rating, though, it's highly unlikely that this will happen.

• Overreliance on CGI effects. Despite his meager directing credentials, which consist of six completed credits (one of them being a short film), I would almost consider Øvredal to be a master director based on the strength of his latest two offerings (this one exempted). That's what makes the final twenty or so minutes of Scary Stories, which feature an obviously computer-generated creature that is a loose blending of two separate “Scary Stories” creatures as a “final boss” of sorts, so ferociously disappointing. Sure, there are other blatant moments of CGI peppered throughout, but they're generally quick sequences that, while hokey, aren't protracted enough to really tarnish the material. All of that is thrown out the window with the end baddie, which is so bad that I can't see anyone but the youngest of children—or most squeamish of teenagers—being able to take it with an even remote sense of seriousness.

• The deeply-political setting. The stories in the book were all based on folklore, so they were existing stories that, in many cases, were passed down from generation to generation for sometimes hundreds of years. The book's author, Alvin Schwartz, compiled all of them, whittled them down to their barest of essentials, and presented them as a horror book for children. With this in mind, this movie could have been set at any time and place while still being considered a faithful adaptation. And yet, of all time periods, it takes place in 1968, during the peak intensity of both the civil rights era, and the presidential election. But why? Despite frequent shots of the election in full swing, and a character being called a “wet back”, none of it plays any meaningful role in the film whatsoever, aside from maybe just serving as an education lesson to kids that these things happened? It just seems completely out-of-place in a “kids” film, where none of the events have any actual ties to either of those things.

• A solid beginning. This might not sound like a bad thing, but when all of your good ideas are used up by the midway point, it really does make every poor idea that ensues all the more frustrating. Look at it this way: If it was consistently bad throughout, it might have a chance at working in a campy, cheesy kind of way, where it's so awful it's at least entertaining. But once you give your audience a taste of greatness—and in the process, prove that you're not an incompetent idiot—then rapidly abandon everything that made it good to begin with in favor of strictly following a tired, by-the-numbers formula, all of the disappointment is magnified.

This isn't to suggest that there are no redeeming qualities. In fact, there are some things to like here: The make-up effects are brilliant, and on the rare occasions a monster from the book makes an appearance, they look amazingly accurate to Gammell's original drawings. There's also the issue of this being a rather large, highly-marketed film, which means chances are pretty good that there were massive amounts of studio interference guiding the film in ways that Øvredal would not have done on his own.

The acting is also up there on par with recent shows like “Stranger Things” (which seems to have been an inspiration here, especially in the groan-inducing ending that functions as concrete evidence that, despite all the dark imagery, this is an adaptation lacking bite), with the teenaged actors giving mostly impressive performances across the board. And that's no small feat: even as my interest went from “10” to “0”, and as every predictable story thread was revealed and everything started unraveling at such a rapid rate that my heart virtually dropped into my stomach, the acting was never a cause of annoyance for me.

Really, Øvredal seems to have done the best that he could do with the source material, which was deeply flawed to begin with: it all comes down to the godawful story, which wouldn't have given anyone a chance to succeed behind the camera. It starts off great, but once it goes off the rails, it does so with such gusto and fervor that nothing—including one of the most talented horror directors working today—could possibly save it.

But damn was that first half promising.

OVERALL: 4/10

TRAILER

MARVEL-LESS MARVISTA: Deadly Matrimony (aka He Loved Them All; aka Vows of Deceipt) (2018)

Director: Jake Helgren
Writer(s): Helgren, and Emily Nye
Starring: Katherine Bailess, Damon Dayoub, Ali Cobrin, and Tiffany Hines

The “best” Lifetime movies are the ones that look like they're not even trying. Whereas in most contexts where that's a positive thing, that would mean that the movie looks and feels great, but that everyone involved has a natural talent that just makes it look so smooth and effortless; in the world of Lifetime, where even the good movies suck, that just means that literally, no one involved looks like they knew what they were doing, and couldn't be bothered to figure it out.

Enter Deadly Matrimony (aka Vows of Deceipt, or He Loved Them All), which is certainly a contender for one of the “worst” Lifetime movies ever made: an idiotic labyrinth of twists and turns that nevertheless might still be gripping were they not executed with pitch-perfect incoherence, and a fundamental misunderstanding of basic logic. But while it may not be “gripping” in the sense that it's a thriller and we're supposed to be glued to our seat trying to figure it all out, it's a jaw-dropping exercise in moviemaking futility; a movie so near-perfect in its ineptitude that it functions as self-parody.

The nonsense starts off right away, when we learn that Sara has just tied the knot with the man of her dreams, a man whom she has known for a whopping three months. Okay...I guess quick marriages are a thing these days, so one can forgive an impressionable 18-year-old for falling in love for the first time and being taken along for a ride she thinks will last forever. Only, Sara is not 18...she looks to be in her thirties (but apparently is only 28). Oh. Even worse: she's an attorney who works on litigation cases. Okay, so she has a career where she has to research people, but never stops to look into the man she's marrying off-the-cuff? (PRO TIP: If you have to ask three different people if you're rushing into something, you've just answered your own question.)

That man is Leo, a suave and sophisticated con man who has an answer for everything. Unfortunately, he's also the type of con man who leaves incriminating evidence everywhere, and so it isn't long before another woman named Melinda appears at her doorstep, offering Sara some juicy information: Leo also goes by the name Sam. And Sam/Leo is also married to Melinda. Whoa, things are heating up pretty quickly here!

Apparently, our protagonist has a history of marrying woman under various names, drains their bank accounts, and then flees onto the next victim. Sometimes, he also kills them, presumably when they (rightfully) realize they've been used and confront him. I can't imagine a person who wouldn't notice that their accounts have been completely drained, nor could I imagine anyone not at least contemplating that it might be the person you don't know that you just married, who went on a vacation before you could even honeymoon, but hey, maybe he's that charming.

Conveniently, and true to his MO, Leo is out of town on business, giving Sara and Melinda plenty of time to network with Cindy, a model and another past wife of his who wants to see him stopped. So our wronged trio gather at Sara's house to put a plan in place, only to discover that the place where he currently “lives” probably isn't the best place to make a plan to capture him. Oh, they also discover that he isn't out of town after all, but watching their every move—sometimes from literally three feet away—and he will stop at nothing to ensure that his plan will continue until he is able to marry, and then steal from, every single woman in the world!

So, what is their brilliant plan? They track down yet another woman—apparently the only one that ever turned down his out-of-the-blue marriage proposal—and convince her to marry Leo/Sam, during which time they will exact their revenge. I'm sorry...what? Wouldn't that be a red flag to a conniving lifetime criminal that a random woman you proposed to months ago just suddenly changed her mind about marriage, and wants to go through with a ceremony without getting to know you again? Actually, wouldn't that be a red flag to anyone? Also, how do all of these women apparently live within a few miles of each other? Call me crazy, but wouldn't you want to spread your marriages out as far as possible in order to maximize the odds that you will get away with it, at least long enough to skip the country, or something? Why, I'm starting to think the reason he's gotten away with it for so long isn't because he's smart, so much as his victims are complete morons.

Oh man, where oh where do I even start? This is exhaustively bad in ways that I never imagined possible from a movie with a budget over $100. Each and every character is somehow stupider than the last, up to and including the suave conman who apparently is so smooth, he's constantly leaving incriminating evidence out in the open. In one unforgettable moment, he even shows how ruthlessly evil he is....by turning the thermostat up to 86 in someone's house. What kind of heartless person would leave a family sweltering in a temporary state of mild discomfort? That bastard!

Then there are the women, who are on such a heightened state of alert out of life-or-death fear that one of them somehow doesn't notice him watching her set the alarm through the front door from three feet away (no exaggeration, either). And, does not one of them ever stop to realize that staying in a house where he has a functioning key to gain entry to is probably the worst possible idea for them?  (Thankfully for him, though, they can't even be bothered to lock the door to begin with.) And, of course, let's not forget the initial fact that they all agreed to marry a guy that they literally knew nothing about.

It's a reverse masterpiece, a nearly “perfect” combination of inept writing and directing that doesn't come along very often. If you're even marginally interested in bad movies, this is one you should go out of your way to check out.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS 

• A necklace will strangle someone to death in all situations, no matter how much leverage a person on top of you with a complete death grip of your neck may have.
• Someone should alert characters in these movies that virtually all smartphones ever made come standard with the ability to block numbers. ("Why does this number that I keep ignoring keep calling me?")
• It's hard to look intimidating when you're holding a teeny gun. Even harder when the gun doesn't work.
• A character falls over with a gunshot wound despite there being no actual sound of the gun going off.
• Anyone can make a Lifetime movie in spirit. But no matter how bad they are, how the hell are they always shot well and look so polished? Isn't there a way to ensure that same quality across the remaining cast and crew members?

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

MARVEL-LESS MARVISTA: The Art of Murder (aka Paint by Murder) (2018)

Director: Alex Merkin
Writer(s): Travis Betz and Blaine Chiappetta
Starring: Alexxis Lemire, Mercer Boffey, Jordi Vilasuso, and Mark Krenik

At the risk of sounding snobbish, I would venture to say that much of the media we consume on a daily basis is meant to be forgotten. We watch the news, are bombarded with dozens upon dozens of stories (most of them probably depressing) and by the end, how many of them do you honestly remember or take to heart? Probably not many. We get online and are bombarded with ad after ad, or spend hours watching YouTube videos, and how many of those honestly have a positive effect on us long after we view them? Probably...well...none. For most “content creators”, the entire point of making content is to make money: they create a video or something else they can monetize, people watch it, and the more views it gets, the more they make. Aside from repeat views, there are no bonuses for making truly lasting emotional content, and so much of the drivel we are subjected to is “single serve” content, meant to be consumed instantly, then forgotten about: whether or not you enjoyed it doesn't matter.

Although The Art of Murder (aka the laughable Paint by Murder) was made by a studio as opposed to a social media star, the end result still feels the same: an instantly-forgetting “thriller” whose sole redeeming quality is its attractive leading lady. I will freely admit, I have a pretty bad attention span and a frustrating inability to remember even important things in life, but this movie was completely erased from my mind by the time I went to bed, not an hour after finishing it. But this time, as it turns out, it was not simply a case of my lackluster brain failing me: within 24 hours, my wife struggled to remember a single thing about it, taking about a minute before parts finally came back to her.

I (believe I) have said it before: The only thing worse than a bad movie is an indifferent one. A great movie can feel almost literally like a new love, setting your heart aflutter and giving you a unique sense of satisfaction; a bad movie may leave you in a terrible mood, with your blood boiling, but at least it gets a reaction. Hell, memories of it might even stay with you longer than some good movies, even if it is for all the wrong reasons (i.e. the “pancake” scene in Cabin Fever, one of the worst scenes of any movie ever made).

But a movie that causes feelings of “indifference” is...just there. It doesn't entertain you while you're watching it, and while it doesn't necessarily bore you either, it leaves absolutely no lasting impression upon you once over. It's like a straight line from beginning to end; a casual acquaintance in your life who could die and you would never even notice they were gone. And isn't being forgotten even worse than being despised? For many people, all that we leave behind once we're gone are memories; when those are gone, it's like we never even existed.

The plot involves the attractive girl, creatively named Kate Miller (and played by Alexxis Lemire, who is temptingly just one "x" short from a much more lucrative career), who is the assistant for an art gallery. She meets an older hunk who has a plethora of paintings painted by his grandfather, along with one rare piece: an original Vermeer for which there are no other known copies in existence. She becomes romantically entangled with him (read: they fuck), which leads to a moral dilemma: should an assistant be sleeping with a potential client? That question becomes even more loaded and urgent when it comes to light that the paintings—and some people involved—might not be what—or who—they are pretending to be...

If I have to say something positive, I will say the acting is slightly above-average overall: I mean, no one's putting on an acting clinic, but most do turn in performances that are way too good for the material...

...which is terrible. Even if you don't watch the trailer—which you probably shouldn't do if you want to watch it because it literally gives away absolutely everything about the plot—you'll still know pretty much the entire story, and who's responsible for what by the ten-minute mark. This is another problem with the MarVista “ecosystem”, where there seem to be just enough characters to take the plot from point A to point B. That might be great for reining in the budget (which, I assume, is the point), but it does mystery films no favors: there aren't even enough characters here to give you a red herring if the writers (yes, there are two) were motivated enough to even try (spoiler: they weren't). In fact, I'm pretty sure it's taken me longer to write this than it took them to come up with the complete cast of characters and storyline.

If, after reading this, you somehow—against all logic and fair warnings—still have the urge to experience this movie for yourself, all I ask is that you do yourself one favor: Don't. Watch the trailer instead, which functions as a two-minute recap and is even more entertaining than watching the idea being thinly padded out to 90 minutes.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Alexxis Lemire joins a small but distinguished list as one of the prettiest MarVista leads of all time. It's unfortunate her entire filmography (as of June, 2019) consists of three made for TV movies (including another one produced by MarVista), and two episodes of a family-oriented television series: while she's far from a great actress, she has the looks and enough talent that she should be able to land better roles (like on CW's latest vampire-themed show?)
• Why does MarVista include the entire movie in some of their trailers (including this one)? We're not just talking giving away one or two minor plot points: we're talking showing twists and all, pretty much in the order they occur. I just don't understand the reasoning behind that, business or otherwise.
• The IMDb lists the actors out of order; I literally don't remember who was who, and don't want to spend any more time on this than I already have, so hopefully I got the four most prominent actors.

RATING: 1/10.

TRAILER (SPOILER ALERT!)