Basket Battle (Android)

 

WHAT IS IT?

“Basket Battle” is a single-player, one-on-one basketball game in which players rush to score three baskets before the opponent does.

INTERFACE/UI

Navigating through “Basketball Buddies” is as simple as it gets - mainly because there’s nothing to really navigate through. The main menu is also the “start game” screen; just tap anywhere outside of the menu options to start the match.

There are some other options available - like accessing “skins” or the “shop” - but these aren’t required. In fact, most of the changes are cosmetic and don’t alter gameplay.

GAMEPLAY

Gameplay is very straightforward. Actually, it’s too straightforward. I mentioned in the synopsis that the goal is to make three baskets before the opponent does. But that’s not just a basic summary of the game: It’s the entire summary.

There are no additional game modes. There are no multiplayer options. Games can’t be elongated (or shortened) beyond the standard 3 basket limit. It’s literally the same thing every single time.

Playing offensively simply means trying to score a basket. Defensively, you can aim at the other player using the same method as “passing/shooting”. If your ball connects with them in mid-flight, they will drop the ball and be “dazed” for a couple of seconds.

And that’s as far as tactics and techniques go. About the only “rule” that I noticed is that you can’t score multiple baskets without touching the ball. For example, if you shoot the ball straight down so that it goes in, pops back up through the hoop, and then lands back through it again, you will only be given credit for the first basket. If, however, you grab the ball on its way down, and have your character throw it back through again, it will count.

Really, any one image can summarize the entire game.

On the one hand, that makes it so simple that anyone can pick up and play it. It also means even players on the brink of a loss almost always have a fighting chance to even it up. But on the flipside, it’s so simple that anyone over the age of 6 will be paralyzed with boredom after just a few short matches. 

There’s very little in the way of a learning curve, and the repetition only deemphasizes it even more. Beyond that, the AI is laughably atrocious. This is especially true on levels where the basket is hidden directly under a block. Often, the computer players will stand on top of the beam and throw the ball around indefinitely, from an angle that would be impossible for even the most math-obsessed trick shooters. 

Somehow, I played through 230 matches. (What can I say? I get bored.) By my count, I lost only 7. (I say “by my count” because the game is too lazy to even keep track of basic stats.) I made it through the first 30 matches before suffering my first defeat. The point of mentioning all this is not to brag, but rather to point out that most new users will likely have a similar experience.

Players do get “points” based on how “difficult” the shot is. For example, scoring from in close to the basket will grant single-digit points, while shots that ricochet off several surfaces before going in otherwise untouched can yield a couple hundred (or more). The thing is, none of the points seem to matter. Points are separate from the in-game currency, which seems to accrue at the same rate no matter how complex your baskets are. And there are no achievements or stat-keeping to even encourage beating your personal bests.

CONTROLS

The controls are probably the highlight of the whole affair: They’re responsive and easy to grasp. This is the type of game that virtually anyone can pick up and play. 

Tapping anywhere on the display slows down the action and places a movable arrow on the screen. This represents the trajectory of the ball path. Sliding a finger along the screen alters the angle that the ball will be thrown, while moving “back and forth” will alter the ball’s power. Once the screen is released, the ball will be flung in that direction.

In order to “catch” the ball, the player must tap the screen again once the ball is in the air. The player will latch onto the ball wherever it is at the time of the pressing, as it continues its forward trajectory (with the player attached). Scoring is achieved when a player tosses the ball through the hoop, using that same exact method.

Overall, the controls are pretty responsive. Aiming is easy enough, and “teleporting” (via the screen taps) is effortless and almost instant. 

GRAPHICS

Like everything else, the graphics are simple. The backdrops vary slightly, with some levels featuring “obstacles” blocking the basket, but the overall “feel” and look of each one is exactly the same. 

The characters are silly and cartoony. Even though everything seems pretty low-effort, there’s nothing offensive or “ugly” about them. In a different game, they might even come off as “cute”. Unfortunately, given the incredibly basic, single-note approach seen here, they are never given a chance to exhibit any time of “personality”. That means every character acts the same way as all the others, including your own.

Overall, I guess the graphics would be considered “average”, although one gets the feeling the developers are capable of so much more.

GAME MODES

"Merge Arena" is a fun place to combine balls for absolutely no reason.

As if you can't already tell, "variety" clearly isn't high on the developer's agenda. However, "Basket Battle" does offer one brief departure from the core game: It's called "Merge Arena". In it, you combine balls to form other balls with the ultimate goal of...nothing. I have no goddamned idea what the point is. You can level up, but the balls you unlock still aren't available for use in the main game. It's every bit as pointless as everything else in this godforsaken mess.

ADS

The ad load is a little on the “excessive” side. Every round ends with a “skippable” ad, which is one that can be bypassed after five or so seconds. Since most rounds last somewhere around the minute mark (maybe even less), it gets annoying rather quickly. Sadly, though, this amount of ads are expected in games like this, so it’s not a dealbreaker in and of itself.

However, there are two things that push it well over the edge: On top of the “post-level” ads, there are even some random ones inserted in the middle of levels. This is annoying for the obvious reason (yet more ads), but also because it breaks up momentum. There’s no warning save for a quick score summary right before it cuts away. Play also resumes directly from where it left off once the ad is skipped, which can be jarring if you forget where the action left off. This can lead to missed baskets and additional frustrations.

Well this doesn't seem like an "offline" game...

That’s not the worst of it, however: Despite being tagged as an “offline” game by developers, it can’t actually be played offline. Turning on airplane mode, for example, results in a warning that the player is offline, with no way to bypass it. If there were multiplayer modes, or other additions that required the use of the internet, this would be understandable. However, there aren’t. That means the sole reason for this is likely to prevent players from disabling the internet in order to avoid ads.

As always, I feel the need  to make it clear that I understand the developers need to make some money. I don’t care about that. Sure, they’re annoying, but that’s the trade-off to getting games for “free”. But the way “Basket Battle” goes about it is shady as hell. Marketing a game as “offline” only to block offline modes for the sole reason of forced monetization? That goes beyond shady, and well into “slimy” territory. It’s offensive, it’s ignorant; about the only thing I can see it accomplishing is angering its player base.

Here’s an idea to the developers: Give the game some substance. Then that would provide incentive for players to voluntarily watch ads, which would increase the revenue. Add a multiplayer mode, too, so there’s a reason to force players to play online. This would make you look less like douchebags.

As it stands, there’s no reason to voluntarily watch them at all outside of some very basic cosmetic upgrades. (“Oh cool, look! A new ball! It’s so colorful! This will make a great replacement for my current, less colorful ball.”) And there’s no real reason to fork over cash, unless you want to remove ads.

Upgrades are purely cosmetic.

Doing that will run you $3.49. It’s nice that this is a one-time payment, rather than a monthly subscription, as some games have turned to. But keep in mind these only remove “skippable” ads that appear during games and between levels; earning reward boosts still require the voluntary viewing of a non-skippable promo. Want to get rid of those? Well, “Basket Battle” has an option for you!

“Skip’its” grant users the ability to skip through rewarded ads, allowing them to claim the reward straight away. These can be claimed for free by - surprise! - watching ads, which seems to be somewhat ironic. In order to avoid that, players can pay real money: Twenty Skip’Its cost $.99, 80 will run you $2.99 and 220 (the “best value”) go for $6.99. What a deal!

IN CONCLUSION

Honestly, there’s the foundation for a fun game here. But that’s the issue: There’s literally nothing more than a foundation. It feels like a demo; a rough outline of a game that is just starting development. 

But it’s not. If this were a clear work-in-progress, I’d be a lot more lenient. Obviously, games should be given opportunities to expand and grow. Unfortunately, judging from the fact this was released in April, 2022 and reviews have complained about the same things since then, it doesn’t seem to be anything on the developer’s radar.

Admittedly, it is fun. Even if it’s just for a short while. But it ultimately doesn’t amount to anything more than a lazy cash grab loosely disguised as a lazy game.

RATING: 1/10.

Crowd Evolution (Android)

WHAT IS IT?

“Crowd Evolution” is a highly-advertised “action” game where you defeat enemies while going through “windows” that either weaken or strengthen your group by carrying them backwards or forwards through time.

At least, that’s the best explanation you’re going to get within the confines of a single sentence.

UI

I’ve bemoaned many mobile games for having a confusing user interface. They seem to want to pack in as many different game modes and features as possible, that the experience of merely navigating around can be somewhat exhausting. 

The main screen, showing all you this game has to "offer".

For the most part, “Crowd Evolution” is not such a game.

Settings can be adjusted by tapping on the gear icon in the upper left hand corner of the screen. There are other options, such as a “spin wheel” or “challenge levels”, that can be explored, but aren’t necessary. These require the viewing of an ad to attempt.

Since there’s only one main game mode, the main screen also functions as the start of the level. You’ll get offers to upgrade your “year” or “manpower” by either using cash or watching a promo, right from the outset. There might be a pop-up urging you to view one in order to play a “bonus level”. To ignore these and start playing, just tap on the bottom of the screen and your “army” starts moving. 

It’s pretty much as straightforward as it gets.

GRAPHICS

In a word, the graphics are “abysmal”. There is nothing visually pleasing about any facet of it. The “good guys” are just blue blobs that vaguely resemble humans; the bad guys are similarly-shaped red blobs. They also happen to be naked more often than not. It seems the further into the future we go, the more and more clothing becomes optional and/or irrelevant. The backgrounds are basic and suffer from a severe lack of detail. They always look the same no matter how far you progress.

The “costumes” for all of the different time periods are also incredibly lame. For example, year 5000 A.D. - or thereabouts - is the “Hero Age”. This is expressed through people who wear pink tops, have pink mohawks, and shoot pink stars out of their hands. Or guns. Or something. And how is the year 2000 the “ninja age”? I mean, that’s the era we’re in right now, and I don’t see gobs of people throwing Chinese stars. The time periods are utterly laughable. 

Look at these stunning graphics.

I guess the plus side to all this, if there is one, is that this game will probably run smoothly on any Android device made since 2010.

GAME MODES

Beyond the base game, “Crowd Evolution” does offer up some “Challenge Levels”. These cost a set amount of in-game currency to play, and, on average, pay less than double the entry fee if completed. These levels are generally more difficult; the enemy count is increased, and more of them are armed. Of course, the player can view an ad upon completion to further multiply their earnings.

"Challenge levels" are the same as regular levels, only slightly harder.

While the enemy count is increased, the mechanics otherwise stay the same. There are no penalties for avoiding bad guys; in fact, the payout is the same for killing stationary enemies as it is for armed ones. You do get money for each enemy killed, but outside of that, there’s no need to go out of your way to kill the more difficult ones.

There are also “bonus levels”. These seem to offer more cash than normal, but also require viewing an ad just to attempt. Once again, core mechanics are exactly the same on these. 

CONTROLS

The controls are pretty responsive, and represent the pinnacle of what this game has to offer. Then again, they’re also severely limited. Your characters are automatically pushed forward on every level. Firing weapons is also automatic, and controlled by the game. There are no ways to stop or move backwards. The only movements the player can control is sliding the characters left and right, to avoid obstacles and to activate the “effect panels” as I call them.

If you can slide your finger from side to side, you'll have no problems.

They move where you want them to. That’s all there is to say about that.

AUDIO

One thing that probably separates me from other mobile gamers - even casual ones - is tha I typically play games muted. I don’t know why. Part of it is because I tend to play violent games with other family members around, and don’t want them to hear the ensuing carnage. Or sometimes to even know that I’m playing a game at all.

Sometimes, when turning up the audio, I learn that I’ve been missing out on an aspect that makes the game more immersive. I find that the sounds in the game are actually an important part of what makes the game fun, or exciting.

“Crowd Evolution” is not such a game. There is no music at all, even on the main menu. The only sound effects are the constant “swoosh” of weapons being thrown/fired. Hitting an enemy results in a dull “thud”. And that’s about the extent of the sound bank. It seems as if the game was made to be played on “mute”, as the effects add nothing to the experience.

GAMEPLAY

Gameplay is “Crowd Evolution” is as simple as it gets, though somewhat hard to explain. You navigate through short levels by controlling an army of blue “good guys”. The number of characters you start with can be increased by using in-game currency, or by watching ads. Your characters start off as cavemen in the “stone age”, throwing rocks at enemies to dispatch them; their starting “era” can also be upgraded through in-game money and ads.

“Effects panels” are scattered throughout the levels, their effect on the game clearly marked in the panel itself. For example, passing through one marked “+400 Years” will take your characters 400 years into the future. This changes their weaponry accordingly; cavemen throwing stones will then be shooting arrows.

They can also have negative effects. For example, walking through one marked “-3 People” will take 3 players away from your “army”. Walking through one marked “-200 years” will set your group’s time period back accordingly. It’s all pretty obvious how each one will affect your team.

Other “good guys” are also randomly scattered throughout the levels. They can be “saved” by walking over them, at which point they are added to your army. They cannot be killed by either enemy or “friendly” fire, making things rather easy. And if you fail to save one…well, once again, there are no penalties. 

This setup could make for a rather interesting game mechanic. Unfortunately, the execution is laughably bad. For starters, all the “bad effects” are marked in red, while the “good” ones are in green. This makes it easy to pick the “right” choice at a glance. The only “real” decision making comes when two side-by-side effect panels are of the same color. There might be one marked “+300 months” next to one that’s “+300 years”, forcing you to decide on the fly which one is better. Gee, that’s hard.

Further hindering the game is that the upgrades barely seem to matter. The bad guys all take one hit to kill regardless of the weapon being used. This essentially means using guns isn’t any more effective than throwing stones. And that means the game is incredibly easy. I made it through 150 “normal” levels and a couple “challenge” rounds, before I finally died. (I fell through a hole in the map, effectively killing my whole team in one fell swoop.) That says something, because I tend to suck on everything mobile.

Most of the enemies are either stationary, or run toward your characters unarmed. In later levels, a few enemies are armed and fire back. But these enemies are few and far between, and still don’t amount to much of a challenge. Unless you only have two or three characters remaining.

At the end of each level, your army is dwindled down to a single character, who automatically fires at a series of pillars. Each pillar displays the amount of damage required to destroy it, and increases the further you go. There are about twenty pillars in a row. This is one area where stats might make a slight difference; the higher your damage and firing rate, the farther you’re likely to go. But once again, the weapons don’t add much, if anything. So whether you’re an alien firing lasers, or a guy throwing ninja stars, you’re likely to go about the same distance.

The end of the level is as long as the main part.

If you fail to destroy all the pillars, it’s not a big deal: You continue on to the next level, with more chances to upgrade your “stats” through in-game currency or ad watching. If you do destroy them all, you “unlock” a new area on your map, which has no effect on gameplay. The map serves no purpose, outside of functioning as a visual display of your “progress”. The more levels you beat, the bigger and more colorful it becomes. That’s it.

There are no rewards for this. You do not receive extra cash, or receive an ad-free upgrade of any stats. Your only “prize” is to continue on to the next level in exactly the same fashion as if you failed. You’re still inundated with offers to upgrade your army through in-game currency or ads, for the same price as before. 

An upgraded map, which earns you, well...nothing.

The most aggravating part is that this ending section takes about as long - if not longer than - the level itself. With no incentive for its completion, I’ve found the best thing to do is intentionally walk into a pillar as early into this section as possible. This immediately ends the level and moves you on to the next one, saving precious minutes over a short period of time.

ADS/GREED

It shouldn’t come as a shock that a game that’s abundantly advertised in other games would feature abundant advertisements in their own product. “Crowd Evolution” plays more like an ad with a game in it, rather than vice versa.

Bonus levels require an ad view to play.

Completing a level results in a skippable ad; money earned from the level can be multiplied by watching an unskippable advert. In-game upgrades use in-game currency; once that’s used up, players are invited to upgrade for “free” by watching an unskippable 30-second promo. There are “bonus levels” that occasionally pop up; these also require the viewing of a full ad to play.

For $2.99, the player can go “ad-free”, which sounds like an enticing deal. However, that only removes the short, skippable ads at the end of each level. The game still constantly hammers you with requests to watch full ones for “free upgrades”. Clearly, paying for the ad-free version just isn’t worth it, something that makes it feel extra scammy.

Outside of the option to go “ad-free”, I must confess there really aren’t any other “paid” upgrades. Everything else in the game can be acquired by viewing promos. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends on the person, but I personally find it to be slightly more acceptable than the games that hit you with a dozen pop-ups for $50 guns or bulk “diamond” purchases upon startup. 

Get used to seeing these offers.

Sure, the constant offers are annoying, but at least they’re mostly voluntary. And since the upgrades do very little, they’re not the least bit necessary.

FUN

Quite simply put, “Crowd Evolution” fails to provide much in the way of fun. It’s the type of game you can play once, and quite literally experience all that it has to offer. The levels look redundant, and the gameplay mechanics are the same across the board, no matter what type of “game mode” you’re playing. The “choices” you make are clearly labeled (“green” for “good” outcomes; “red” for bad), eliminating the potential for stressful, on-the-fly decisions.

It’s the same thing, every single time. There is nothing promoting long-term replayability here in the slightest.

IN CONCLUSION

There’s probably the outline of a fun game in here somewhere, but it’s buried deep under the tedious gameplay and heavy ad load. If you’re not being force-fed an ad after every action, you’re being “requested” to watch one for the sake of providing mostly unnecessary upgrades for your group.

Unless you’re the type of person that keeps their cable TV subscription solely for the ads, “Crowd Evolution” has absolutely nothing to offer.

OVERALL: 1/10.

Christmas in the Wilds (2021)

Director: Justin G. Dyck

Writer(s): Neal Kimmel
Starring: Kaitlyn Leeb, Laura Vandervoort, Victor Zinck Jr., Melinda Shankar

Well, well, well, I should have known I would end up jinxing us: After mentioning how many Christmas movies were above average this year, we started running into a couple snags. And that streak continues with Christmas in the Wilds, an adventure movie without action, and a romance movie without any actual romance.

Imagine Mr. Magoo trying to direct a movie, and that’s about what you end up with here: It’s a bumbling mess of a movie that tries to do too much and ends up accomplishing nothing. There’s not much in the way of humor, leaving the whole atmosphere just feeling dry and lifeless, kind of like the male lead. By the midway point, my wife turned to me and asked, “Are we supposed to be cheering for these people?” which is an excellent question that I had no idea how to accurately answer; a question that gets even harder to fathom by the end.

All this failure is a double-shame, considering it stars the usually-reliable Kaitlyn Leeb as Jessica, a woman who is going to meet her boyfriend’s family for the first time. Well, of course it’s not his entire family, because his father passed away. You see, having a relative be dead is the perfect way to avoid having to come up with any sort of heart-tugging backstory; death = automatic sadness. It's a shortcut these writers seem to fall back on with more and more frequency every year.

Anyway, her boyfriend is Buck, a man just about as unattractive as Leeb is stunning, which already gets things off on the wrong foot. He is a forest ranger, and one who’s known far and wide for his bravery and know-how. He’s also a pilot, because why not? Oh, and another thing you should know: his ex-girlfriend, Meg, is a former colleague, also because why not? AND he never told Jessica about working so close to his ex-colleague. Because...you guessed it: why not?

Even though Christmas plays a minor role in this garbage, our story actually starts around Thanksgiving, when Buck receives word, from Meg no less, that a huge storm is threatening their area, and they could use an extra set of hands to help with potential injuries. He assures Jessica it will only be temporary, and then leaves her there alone with his family, despite the fact his mom isn't really feeling her.

“A few days” turns into “a few more days”, which turns into “a couple weeks”, which turns into "a month". It’s now Christmas Eve: Buck finally starts to head home to Jessica, but needs to refuel his plane, and conveniently the roads are shut down from a terrible storm, even though the weather in every scene is mild, at best. At first, the two would-be lovers plan on seeing each other on New Years instead…until Jessica gets a wild idea: Instead of waiting for him to come home, why doesn’t she go to meet him instead? Buck likes the idea, and agrees to meet her halfway via snowmobile, taking his ex-girlfriend with him as a guide, in a decision that’s one of many that will leave you questioning whether the writers were concussed, or sniffing inhalants during the writing process. 

Halfway to the halfway point (?) of her journey, Jessica loses control of her Jeep on an icy patch, getting it stuck in a snowbank off the side of the road. Unable to get it out, she stumbles on the house of a black man dressed as Santa Claus, who is getting ready for the town’s Christmas parade (?). His truck is being worked on, so he’s unable to offer her a ride, but what he does happen to have are sled dogs. Yes, for real. And even more insane: He lets her “borrow” them without so much as a second thought, and without even testing her abilities to control them.

So Jessica sets out with the man’s sled dogs to make the remainder of the trek to Buck’s location. She finally tracks them down, just in time to see them getting cozy together next to a fire, which starts the obligatory argument between the two. Buck assures her nothing has happened between them, and finally gets her to trust him…just as one of the sled dogs gets its leg stuck in an old fox trap. That’ll teach Black Santa to hand his dogs out to any rando who asks to borrow them next time!

Buck suggests that the three of them head to the cabin together, probably hoping for a threesome, but that idea is quashed by Jessica, who exclaims “She’s coming with us?!” Thankfully, the would-be homewrecker senses she’s not wanted, and offers to head back to the base, taking the wounded sled dog with her to get it some much-needed treatment.

And we’re supposed to be cheering for this stupid primate, who is too ignorant to realize that inviting his ex-girlfriend to what was supposed to be an intimate one-on-one getaway to a cozy cottage with his current girlfriend, is a big no-no? And, even more unforgivable, Jessica not only tolerates this behavior, but is still somehow enamored with him? Holy mother of fuck. 

Unfortunately the trek isn’t quite over yet: The only way to get to the cabin is to cross a treacherous, raging creek. Somehow, the 100 pound woman has no issues crossing, but the large gorilla man gets swept away by the current, finally managing to pull himself out of the freezing-cold water several hundred feet downstream. Jessica helps him get out, where he tosses his wet and freezing clothes away, and then they finally make it to the cabin where he’s able to warm up, and put on the ugliest, most ill-fitting fucking pajamas imaginable. 

A reminder: This isn't some couple who's been together for years and have a deep, undying love for each other: This is a couple that has only been together for “a few” months. Essentially, these are just two people who barely know each other, going through more than most married couples would do, just to give each other the most unromantic peck on the lips in movie history at the end. 

I think this is all supposed to show the great lengths two lovers will go to reunite, even in the face of danger, but it's closer in appearance to "the lengths two highly desperate people will go to just to have something to live for." There's not one moment of one scene anywhere that's even borderline romantic: I think Buck would fuck his job before he would get intimate with Jessica, as that's all the hideous beast will talk about the entire time. It's like fate is a magnet that 

I rate these haphazard movies on an “entertainment rating” scale, which is different from the ratings I give to “normal” movies. Usually, a movie like this - where one unconvincing thing happens right after another - would score relatively high, because watching a mess like that is the very definition of entertaining. But this one just…isn’t. Kaitlyn Leeb is always cute in whatever role she’s in, but aside from being likable, she still comes off as a complete moron. Who’s going to go to these great lengths just to see some unattractive baboon after six months of dating? 

If you like watching love stories totally devoid of any emotion whatsoever, and enjoy movies where you cheer against seeing the two leads getting together - even though you know they will - you might enjoy this one. However, I’m in both camps, and this was still a raging waste of my time. 

Fuck. 

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

• How in the fuck does Buck keep the meteorite rock that Jessica gives him, which he then eventually proposes with? It’s in the pocket of his coat, which gets soaked in water after he falls in, and that he removes outside in a bid to stay warm. Or maybe it was in his backpack, which gets swept away by a current and is never recovered. Then, he somehow has it in the pocket of the ugly pajamas he puts on. Great awareness saving that fucking worthless rock.
• I didn’t even touch on Buck’s PTSD from fighting in the war, which crops up when Meg starts a snowmobile (something he equates with bombs going off even though he rode one himself earlier), and the howling of wolves (which would remind him of…what, the whistling sound of incoming bombs? I don’t fucking know.)
• Astonishingly, this is a sequel to Romance in the Wilds, in which the same two leads play the same characters, only they get stuck in a forest wildfire. I’m sure there’s plenty of “romance” to go around in that one, too.
• I also haven’t mentioned Roma, a girl apparently named after a tomato, which is Buck’s sister, and whom Jessica entrusts to watch her dog despite Roma’s aversion to dogs. She even gets a sidestory, in which she searches for her one true love: A soldier who went MIA in Afghanistan.
• I'm still at a loss for words how Justin G. Dyck goes from directing several sappy love-fests, to directing the solid horror film Anything for Jackson, and then immediately goes back to directing another series of these insipid gag-fests. That guy clearly has some talent, and it's being squandered on this junk. 

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 1/10

TRAILER

Endless Love (2014)

Director: Shana Feste
Writer(s): Feste and Joshua Safran, from a novel by Scott Spencer
Starring: Gabriella Wilde, Alex Pettyfer, Bruce Greenwood and Robert Patrick

Jesus Christ…it had been a long time since I saw a “mainstream” movie; usually, we delve into the lame holiday rom-coms starring celebrity has-beens on the downhill slope of their careers. For whatever reason, we stumbled on Endless Love, a thriller about a psychopathic father who will stop at nothing to control his family. Oh wait, nevermind…it’s actually a “romantic” movie about a middle-class kid who falls for a girl from a rich family.

The inanity starts off immediately, when we are asked to believe that the aforementioned girl - who, may I remind you, is rich - went unnoticed by virtually everyone all throughout high school. Riiight. This actually sets a pretty good precedent for what follows, which is an ever-increasing collection of boundless stupidity. 

The rich girl whom no one ever noticed is Jade Butterfield, a blonde who would attract any high school boy regardless of social class. Actually, at least one boy was caught up by her looks: That boy is David Elliott, the son of a mechanic, which is the occupation that always seems to be the basic example used in media to represent a middle-class family. Of course, he didn’t have the nerves to talk to her throughout high school, but he finally does work up the nerve on graduation day; rather immediately, the two kids from opposite sides of the tracks form an almost inseparable bond.

This sits well with every single other character in the movie, except for Hugh Butterfield, Jade’s domineering father. You know how most romance movies have at least a few things that have to try to pull the two lovers apart so that their romance gets tested? Well this romance gets tested time and time again by Hugh’s increasingly sociopathic behavior. He takes an immediate disliking to David just based on his aforementioned social status, believing that since he helps his father work on cars, he has no dreams or aspirations. This is cemented when David admits during a conversation with the Butterfield family that he has no plans to attend college. No one else at the table cares, including Hugh's wife, or Jade's douchey-looking (but actually nice) frat-boy type brother. But for an old-fashioned asshole like Hugh, this is an inconceivable notion; life should be all about getting into a prestigious school, having a prestigious job, getting married, and living a prestigious life. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

And that’s why he goes through almost every conceivable avenue to prevent his daughter from seeing the man that she’s destined to be with. Despite the objections of his wife, his own son, and of course Jade herself, because why should her own opinions matter? After all, she’s just a young girl who doesn’t know the ways of the world, and it should be up to her dad to protect her, right? If this sounds terrifyingly creepy, it is. 

Honestly, a plot outline seems almost moot, given the number of tropes that get crammed into this one. It doesn’t feel like an actual story so much as a collection of them, presented one right after another. Considering this was based on a novel (by Scott Spencer), I would be more apt to blame him for the mess that transpires, except that - based on several sources I've read online (read: everyone) - this strays so far from the original novel that it's really only "loosely based" on it. 

In fact, about the only thing it seems to share with the source material is that, despite the name and marketing materials, it's not at all a charming love story. But whereas the book paints David as "obsessive" towards a more worldly Jade, the movie doesn't even have the slightest clue as to its identity. It focuses too much on the connection between the main stars to be considered a thriller, whereas Hugh's increasingly concerning behavior is completely unsuitable for a romance. It lives inside a grey area where it will only alienate fans of either genre.

At the end of the day, this is almost worse than those cheesy "off-brand" rom-coms, made by smaller studios; given the amount of resources that were no doubt granted to the filmmakers, it's baffling to me how they ended up churning out this bottom-of-the-barrel shit. It’s like they couldn’t decide between making a love story, or a thriller, so they ended up making neither

The ending only makes things worse, when - after ignoring his own family’s pleas to ease up on David for the entire running time - Hugh finally just "snaps out" of his evil streak to save an unconscious David from a burning building. Yep, that's how he makes up for months of abusing David and Jade so badly, that he literally tears his entire family apart. There, I just spoiled it for you so you don’t have to sit through this mindless garbage yourself.

Actually, “mindless” might be giving it too much credit.

RATING: 1/10

TRAILER

MARVEL-LESS MARVISTA: Cradles for Cash (Maternal Instinct) (2019)

Director: Michael Feifer
Writer(s): Feifer
Starring: Adrienne Frantz, Christy Carlson Romano, Gabrielle Stone, and Scott Anthony Leet

Alright, now we're back on track here! After witnessing a couple MarVista movies that were actually good, we've been set back in our place with some that have been among the worst atrocities ever unleashed upon the world. And the latest example of that is Cradles for Cash, a movie so bad that you'll actually be rooting for the main characters to never get their stolen baby back.

Teen pop sensation Adrienne Frantz is annoying, but also Kelly, a nurse who has been trying to have a baby with her overacting husband Jonathan. They're the perfect couple because you want to punch both of them in the face every time you see them, either alone, or together. Kelly is pregnant, and just so happens to be “in charge” of the nursery wing. So knowledgeable she is in her field—nursing, mind you—that she manages to override a doctor's suggestion to perform a C-section on a mother experiencing a breeched pregnancy, by turning the baby around in utero. Then, she has the gall to explain to him how he may have had many years of extra schooling, but her lack of schooling allowed her to gain actual experience in the field, and that's why she's so good at what she does. Holy fuck, I hate her and this movie already. (I know I'm putting too much thought into it, but in no hospital would a nurse ever get away with acting like that towards a doctor making a completely logical, routine decision.)

To speed this up, babies are being stolen from local hospitals, courtesy of a Russian woman named Svetlana, who takes her (apparently) teenaged child with her during her frequent hospital runs, where she dresses like a nurse, and is allowed to walk out with any newborn of her choosing. Okay...whatever. Svetlana is part of a ring of baby stealers, who ship newborns overseas, where families pay large amounts of money for American children. Her latest one, however, turned out to be sick, and couldn't be sold, which should probably lead us to assume it was killed, but that's too dark a thought for a movie like this, so all we're informed is that she's in hot water with her boss, and has to deliver another baby to make up for the crap one she just offered them.

Good God let's cut to the chase: Of course, it turns out to be Kelly's, who went into labor shortly after the “breech” ordeal. She teams up with a woman named Gloria whose baby was stolen years ago, and who goes around offering help to mothers of stolen children, because apparently it happens with great frequency. Together, the two must get to the bottom of an intricate network that surprisingly lacks any security whatsoever, while shouting lines like, “These babies are STOLEN!” with such added emphasis on the 'stolen' that she sounds like a petulant child screaming at her mother for not getting her way.

Oh, and Doctor Lee is one of the people behind the operation, because of course Kelly's “maternal instincts” have to be correct about everything, and she can't just not like someone without them actually being a bad guy. Fuuuuuck. I hate this movie.

This is a tough movie to rate, because it's a movie that has to be seen to be believed, but not a movie that you should ever see. On one hand, there are several moments of pure unintentional brilliance, some of which were so good that we had to rewind them to make sure we actually witnessed what we thought we witnessed; I haven't experienced a movie like this in a long time. But on the other, I can't recall hating a main character with such unbridled ferocity before that those two things pretty much cancel each other out, leaving nothing but a frequently maddening movie in its wake; one where most of the characters die, except for the two you want to the most. (And I'm referring to the wife and husband, not the baby; you just hope she goes to a better family.)

STRAY OBSERVATIONS (SPOILER ALERTS) 

• After Svetlana is murdered, pay attention to how her daughter, who presumably is now going to be orphaned because her mother is all she had, is treated by both the paramedics—who say nothing to her as her dead mother's body is wheeled out—and the main characters, who literally just leave.
• Svetlana is so good at what she does, that the newborn babies never make a sound, even as they're being crammed into a duffel bag.
• Comedy gold: A scene where Gloria is driving a car, yet converses with Kelly without even looking at the road. 
• Poor Adrienne Frantz actually seems to give the role all she has. It's got to be the first instance I can recall where that somehow made me hate her character even more. 
• Can we ever have a movie where a mother can be a mother without rubbing in your face that she's a mother every five seconds? 
• If the husband had more screen time, I think I literally would have ripped my own eyes out.
• I know things like this actually happen, but hearing the way the children are described in terms of “inventory” is actually hysterical, at least in the context of incompetence like this. Try not to laugh at lines like, “They haven't loaded the babies yet!” or “The babies are not toys!” or “No, don't ever name the babies!” 
• On a serious note, Gabrielle Stone's performance as Svetlana is probably the most believable one in this whole mess, which is a shame since her character is a terrible, terrible person, and thus you hate her anyway. 
• There's a twist, but who gives a shit? 
• Adrienne Frantz released a horrible pop album in 2007. 

RATING: 1/10

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!)

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: A Christmas Prince: The Royal Wedding (2018)

Sometimes—okay, maybe most of the time—it's really shocking to me the things that “take off”. Take, for instance, Netflix's original holiday romance A Christmas Prince, released last year, which somehow blew up and went viral, despite not even being a slightly-enjoyable example of what makes these cheesy movies appealing.

Well given the attention paid to the first one, it was all but guaranteed there would be a sequel. That sequel is called A Christmas Prince: The Royal Wedding, and it takes everything that was bad with the first, makes them even worse, and then adds a bunch of other bad things to the list. It's one that, dare I say it, even the more hardcore romantic cheeseballs will have a very hard time slogging through.

It's almost a year after the events of the first one, and Amber is finally about to get married to Prince Richard of Aldovia. She is summoned from her New York home, and whisked away to the fictional country to do just that. But she isn't going alone—she's brought her edgy, inner-city pops (who thinks he's a “chef” because he owns a diner in New York City) along. He's one of those no-nonsense type tough guys who thinks it's appropriate to give high fives to dignitaries and bear hug a queen...no way that appalling behavior could eventually endear himself to the royal family!

God, I'm just not going to get into it. If your idea of romance is watching a man constantly get pulled away from his woman to answer work-related calls, this is the movie for you...seriously, Amber spends so much of the movie without her man, that you just expect her to call things off. This is bad, but not in an enjoyable way; it seems to take pride in crossing the line from “frivolously stupid, lighthearted fun” to “rage-inducing idiocy”, and then just staying there as long as it can.

Just a few thoughts I have: Amber really thinks she'll be able to keep blogging as a queen to a kingdom? What exactly does she think being a QUEEN will entail? Why even center a romantic movie around this plot, when the entire first half consists of Richard getting pulled away to deal with business? Why is the dad such a moron? Why does he keep touting his diner credentials, as if those would up his status among royalty? When did the crippled girl learn to hack into computer systems? Why did they have to bring a “feminist” angle to all of this? Of course, for the sake of the movie, she ends up getting her way and completely undoing centuries of time-honored traditions, but common sense would tell you not to marry into a royal family if being yourself is your main motivation in life. How did no one have time to look into a money-laundering scheme so grand, it literally depleted all of Aldovia's money? Jesus...I'm done here.

RATING: 1/10

TRAILER

NON-CHRISTMAS CAPSULE: Christian Mingle (2014)

Oh, Christ...

I'm cheating a little bit, because this isn't even a Christmas movie, but for some reason I equated it with one the first time I saw it and so I'm just going to pretend it is (though, in my defense, a character does oddly have a Christmas tree in the background during an early scene...). But there's no way I just sat through this, for a second time, with no possible course of action to warn the general public against watching this movie, under any circumstances.

This is that movie for people that saw the awful ChristianMingle.com ads and thought, “Wow, I wish they would drag this out to feature length”—and only for those zero people. I won't get into my whole viewpoints on religion, but it doesn't matter: no matter how you affiliate with Christianity, whether you're the world's biggest atheist or a preacher yourself, chances are great you'll be cringing your way through most of these 90 minutes. Even beyond its agonizing preachiness and judgmental tone, it only seems to want to show that in order to be a good Christian, you have to be a boring, terrible person.

Gwyneth (Lacey Chabert, of course) is a female marketing executive (of course!) desperate for love who sees all of her friends getting engaged, and so she decides the best possible course of action is to sign up for ChristianMingle.com, after seeing an ad for it on TV. Yeah, because even Christians think that's a logical step toward finding true love. Whatever. Anyway, there's only one problem: She is not technically a Christian. She's not against the idea, mind you, she just doesn't practice Christianity by reading a bible or going to church every Sunday and, by the guidelines of the people involved in making this movie, that apparently means she's a piece of shit and going directly to hell. Oh, and we already know from an introductory voiceover that she finds both true love, and Him, telling us everything we need to know and honestly preventing us from even needing to watch it to know how it plays out.

Of course, through the service, she meets Paul, a practicing Christian who hosts weekly bible studies with his equally boring married friends, and who enjoys talking about Christ as much as possible. Paul is a smug little prick, the kind of person you want to punch in the face the first time you see him; by the end, you'll desperately want Gwyneth to fall in love with literally anyone else, preferrably a non-Christian that she can have engaging conversations, and loads of premarital sex, with.

Anyway, to speed this up, Paul goes in a missionary trip to Mexico without even telling Gwyneth (because that's a pretty Christian thing to do) and then invites her to come down with him, only once he's there, and on a complete whim. She drops what she is doing, and buys a fucking plane ticket to Mexico, only to have her “true intentions” outed by a copy of Christianity for Dummies (seriously, true story), because, apparently, no one is allowed to want to learn more about religion, and because traveling to Mexico in no way signals her love for him. After all, he's King Christian, and doesn't have to do any extra reading on the topic because he already knows every single shred of possible knowledge about the subject.

But no, that smug little prick sends her back home, appalled that the woman he fell for was just "pretending the whole time". So, of course Gwyneth spends her free time back in the States dedicating her life to Christ—and it's still not enough, when a few months (or weeks, or years, I don't even care) later, she has another run in with Paul, in which she calls out that the ex-girlfriend he is back together with, isn't even right for him. The smug little prick tells her she's out of line and that he will “pray for her”, but beyond that there is nothing he can do, and that they should never see each other again. Somehow, instead of slitting his throat right then and there, she takes that information to heart, quits her cushy marketing job and goes back to Mexico alone, to fulfill her dreams of being a teacher there. Paul comes for her, informs her he broke up with his ex, and then proposes. The End.

What do we learn? Well, for starters, put your religion above love, and settle for a fellow Christian, even if you do not want to be with them; if you're reading a purchased copy of Christianity for Dummies, you are just a poser and not at all interested in learning about religion; leaving your job just to visit a man in Mexico in no way proves loyalty or dedication to them; women should allow men to control and degrade them for "not being Christian enough"; ChristianMingle.com is a wonderful service, when used the way God intended.

RATING: 1/10

TRAILER