Pyewacket (2017)

Director: Adam MacDonald
Writer(s): Adam MacDonald
Starring: Laurie Holden, Nicole Munoz, Chloe Rose and Eric Osborne

Pyewacket is about teenage angst as filtered through the lens of a horror movie. The experience of watching it is almost like waking up groggy on a train, with no idea how you got there. Everything is blurry, and out of focus; your destination unknown. Then, slowly, you start piecing the plot together, and think you know where it’s headed, but you’re just praying you’re wrong. Then the train heads to its final destination, with you on board, powerless to steer it away from the ending you knew was coming. But, to its credit, whether you see it coming or not, it still packs a punch, thanks partly to a creepy atmosphere and genuine scares.

Leah Reyes is a high schooler whose mother just hasn’t been herself since the (presumably) recent death of her husband. She seems uncaring, at one point telling her daughter “you can do whatever you want, I don’t care,” advice that no child of any age should ever hear.

Both of them have chosen different ways of expressing their sadness: Leah turned to the occult, finding some comfort in the ideologies and beliefs of the dark arts. Her mother, on the other hand, resorts to a more straightforward approach, shutting down and succumbing to her grief. Neither one understands the others’ coping mechanisms, with Leah feeling like her mother is permanently a shadow of her former self, and her mother feeling like her daughter is irredeemably lost in a world that is all hocus pocus.

All of these emotions reach a fever pitch when Mrs. Reyes informs her daughter that she needs a change of scenery; she can’t stay in a house filled with so many hurtful memories of their past. This decision - which comes as rather sudden to Leah - further serves as proof that her mother doesn’t care about her. She thinks about having to uproot her life, and start all over with new friends. High school is already a tough time for a lot of people, and having to completely start from scratch somewhere else - with no one to turn to for immediate support - doesn’t really ease any of those feelings.

Leah reluctantly agrees to check out the new house. It’s a secluded, rustic house surrounded by woods and nothing else. The isolated setting alone could probably drive a wedge between two people, but the wedge has already been driven; the house only serves as the perfect setting for some rather excellent scares.

To show that she might not be as bad as Leah believes, her mother extends an olive branch to her daughter: Rather than uproot her life straightaway, Mrs. Reyes agrees to drive Leah to and from school - an hour each way - until the end of the school year to give her daughter some time to come to grips with the move. This isn’t enough for Leah, though, who still resents her; this leads to a fierce argument between the two which pushes the daughter over the edge.

Fed up with what she perceives as a mother who is too far gone, she uses a spell to summon Pyewacket, an entity to kill her mother. Strange things immediately start happening. They’re relatively innocent at first: footsteps moving around in the attic, dirt showing up on the floor of their house. But soon, the events start getting a little more…personal, and Leah soon starts to regret her spur-of-the-moment decision. But how can you undo something that you’ve done?

The film cleverly focuses on the relationship between them in its current state, without any past references to draw upon. It’s a portrait of two people in very different emotional states, but ones that many can relate to: A mother wracked with grief, and a daughter who is on the cusp of adulthood, trying to come to grips with her evolving emotions. Like many teens, she’s temperamental, trying to understand herself as well as the evolving world around her. Gradually, we learn the reasons behind the way things are, and it’s not as cut and dry as one would think. It’s the perfect setup for the scares that eventually unfold, some of which - like the first appearance of Pyewacket - will haunt even the most hardened horror fan.

What makes Pyewacket work so well is that the dramatic foundation is solid, even before the scares come into play. The relationship between mother and daughter is believable enough that, even if you remove the supernatural elements, the story would still be gripping. This is mainly thanks to a breakout performance from Nicole Munoz as Leah, who is convincing as a high schooler trying to make sense of a world that simply doesn’t always make sense.

She learns that the hard way. 

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

Dave Made a Maze (2017)

Director: Bill Watterson
Writer(s): Steven Sears and Watterson
Starring: Meera Rohit Khumbani, Nick Thune, Adam Busch and James Urbaniak

Dave is a thirtysomething man with a hot girlfriend, who feels like he hasn’t accomplished anything with his life. He seems like a man who’s riddled with ADHD: he fills his free time with a variety of crazy ideas, which he quickly abandons the moment he has ideas for his next one (something to which I can sadly relate all too well). 

After his girlfriend, Annie, leaves him alone one weekend, he decides to build a fort out of cardboard boxes. From the outside, it looks like a simple little creation; creative, but more a waste of time than anything else. But when Annie tries to lure him to come out, we learn that it’s not quite as simple as it seems - on the inside, it’s a massive multi-room, booby-trapped hellscape featuring a minotaur who craves human flesh. Worst of all: he can’t find a way out of his own creation.

He tries dissuading his friends from coming in to help rescue him, and risk getting lost (or worse), but eventually, they realize there is no other choice. Against Dave’s wishes, they enter - a merry band of misfits including his nerdy best friend Gordon, Annie, a documentary film crew (?) who want to make a film about the motivations behind his creation, and even a couple of Swedish tourists (??).

If it all sounds dumb, that’s because it is…and that’s the point. It’s clearly not meant to be taken seriously. And that’s part of what makes Dave Made a Maze so special: its freewheeling creativity. The fort's massive interior is filled with origami birds, dangers made out of cardboard (yet that pose a serious life-or-death threat to the protagonists), and blood made out of what appears to be papier-mache (or a similar material). There’s even a scene where the characters turn into hand puppets, an unexpected addition that only adds to its unique charm. The end credits feature animated versions of all the characters of the movie - living or dead - as they wave to the camera; it feels like the cinematic equivalent of a post-performance theatrical bow. It all feels like the quiet daydreams of a young child, the kind where they dream of being the hero, coming to the aide of the damsel (or damoiseau, which I just learned is the male equivalent) in distress, while avoiding monsters and traps. It's like a throwback to the innocence of childhood, long before the dark shadows of adulthood take hold, and threaten to ruin one's natural curiosity. And that nostalgic quality is part of what makes the whole film feel special.

Also lending itself to the experience is the cast - who are uniformly committed to the sometimes bizarre material - and the set design, which is an absolute work of art. The maze itself almost becomes another character, feeling like a living, breathing entity that helps to maintain the film's whimsical attitude. It looks and feels like an A-movie in a B-movie's body, thanks to its attention-to-detail and the obvious care with which it was made.

Now, there are some things working against its fevered frenzy of seemingly endless imagination: It comes mainly in the form of the documentary film crew, and Dave’s dramatic on-camera diatribe about the reasons he made it. The film’s director, Harry, spends the whole film trying to maximize drama and tension, utilizing a boom operator and cameraman (who randomly spits out sunflower seeds almost every time we see him) who follow him wherever he goes. He’s the typical kind of douchey on-screen filmmaker, played for laughs but frequently crossing the line into annoying. Yes, part of that is the point - and by the end he almost becomes likable - but it doesn’t make him feel any less clichéd, and his hapless, bumbling helpers (a boom operator and cameraman) don't help matters any.

The minotaur - who is a buff man with a cardboard head - is also rather pointless, although I guess they needed some kind of immediate threat beyond the constant stream of booby-traps. He shows up at random, pre-planned times to scare the main characters, but feels more like a character in one of those Halloween haunted houses, where part of the effectiveness is lost by performers who aren't allowed to touch the participants. 

There is a small body count, but once again, the papier-mache violence isn’t the point. It’s the banding together of several outcasts, in order to save one of their own, and the often humorous struggles they encounter along the way.

Despite its confusing billing virtually everywhere as a “horror” movie, Dave Made a Maze fits more comfortably in the “fantasy” genre, a throwback to ‘80s adventure films like The Goonies, and Labyrinth. That's because that's what it's meant to be. It’s goofy, it’s funny, it’s silly, and perhaps most importantly, it’s fun. Maybe that misleading connotation is why it unfairly came and went without so much as a peep when it premiered four years ago; this is the type of cult movie that deserves a following. Fans of true horror, or those that like their storylines to be more grounded in reality, won’t find much to like here, but those who seek a film with a laid-back non-pretentious, un-douchey arthouse vibe definitely will. 

RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

Ghost Stories (2017)

Directors: Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman
Writers: Dyson and Nyman, adapted from their own stage play
Starring: Andy Nyman, Martin Freeman, Paul Whitehouse, and Alex Lawther

My wife and I were planning on sitting down to a viewing of Ghost Stories one evening, when she laid down a huge bombshell on me: she wanted to be terrified; a movie that would scare the daylights out of her. While she's always willing to watch whatever I want, she's not always willing to go that far with it; I was psyched, and—even though I'd heard this one was relatively scary—spent over an hour looking for something that would scare her even more--only to come up with nothing. So after all that wasted time, the night went on as originally planned...

...which ended up being a good thing.

The set-up of Ghost Stories is almost as creepy as the stories themselves: Phillip Goodman is a professor, and a skeptic, who runs a television show called “Psychic Cheats”, in which he publicly outs popular “psychics” (think that John Edward guy from the early 2000s). It's an honest living, I suppose, until he gets a letter from his idol, a man by the name of Charles Cameron. Cameron was the “original” naysayer, debunking claims of the supernatural; his earlier works were the main inspiration for Goodman to enter the same field.

The meeting, however, does not go as planned: the crotchety old man reveals that Goodman's work is “shit”, and that there really are some stories that can't merely be explained away with science or logic. He begs Goodman to investigate three stories of the supernatural that he himself could not disprove; these three stories make up the basis for the anthology.

I don't really understand why anthology movies all of a sudden feel like there needs to be a framing narrative around the whole thing, because that usually ends up being the worst of the stories. Why can't we just go back to the good ol' days, where each story in the anthology was just that, with nothing to link or tie them together? At any rate, that seems to be the current fad, and at least Ghost Stories' framing device is rather unique,while at the same time actually adding tension before any of the tales are spun; after all, if the premiere naysayer can't just discuss these stories away, how terrifying must they be?

“Case 1” concerns a former nightwatchman named Tony Matthews, who guards a large, seemingly abandoned building. He worked at that particular place for years, until one day, something seems hellbent on capturing his attention. At first, it's just minor: the lights go out, the generator mysteriously unplugged by someone. But as the night wears on, the events seem to get more and more threatening: there are loud noises heard, interference through his walkie talkie, and something seems to be calling out to him. What could have been so scary that he never went back to that job?

The setting here is perfect, with long shots of him in his watch station that show just how dark—and huge—the building is. And that's actually the best part of Ghost Stories: while the stories themselves aren't anything unique, the way they build up tension out of “normal” movie cliches is pretty impressive. We've seen dark buildings a million times before, but the way the scene is established—along with that framing narrative that hints we're in for something terrifying—really helps to effectively set the mood before anything even happens. Our brains are already programmed to be scared right from the outset; it's almost psychological horror, in a way.

“Case 2” follows Simon Rifkind (the great Alex Lawther, from the great Black Mirror episode “Shut Up and Dance”), a teenager who has never been the same ever since seeing a mysterious goat-like creature deep in the woods on his way home from a party one night.

Again, the setting is familiar, and the story is completely threadbare, but the lack of a long set-up and the filmmakers' grasp of what makes things scary really helps keep things interesting. I mean, how many characters in horror movies have been stranded in the woods by a car that suddenly dies? But here, the desolate setting—along with Simon's loneliness—really help to set the mood. It's familiar, but not quite in the same way we're accustomed to, and that's what makes it rather chilling. I will say that it ends on a somewhat humorous note that die-hard horror fans might not appreciate (I'm not entirely sold on it myself), but the build-up to it is creepy, to say the least.

Lastly, there's “Case 3”, who follows a distinguished looking gentleman named Mike Priddle, who takes his wife to the hospital after she experiences spotting late in her pregnancy. He returns home to do some work—and quickly discovers that something seems to be reaching out to him—from the room they set up to be their nursery.

Once again, this one makes good use of the location--a sprawling mansion that's far too big for two people—and that also preys on the fears of parents, to create a story that had my wife burying her face in blankets for most of it. It's yet another creepy tale that might end up being the best in the lot, and that sets up the film's most shocking scene, which caught us both off guard: it elicited a noticeable yelp from my wife, and dropped my jaw nearly to the floor.

But things aren't quite as they appear: all of them tie directly into Professor Goodman himself, something that he learns the hard way...

I'm not sure that I would really categorize Ghost Stories as all that “scary”--there are some effective jump scares, and while the atmosphere is excellent in all three stories, they really didn't cross the line into truly terrifying territory for me. The most effective scary stories should take the viewer out of their comfort zone, catch them off guard, and create an eerie ambiance that just creates a constant, pervasive feeling of dread. The Innocents did that to me, Black Sabbath did that to me, and even more recent fare like Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch project all managed to get my heart rate pumping, and my hands clammy.

This isn't quite on the same level as those classics, but that doesn't mean that it's not effective in its own right: I had a smile on my face for probably half the movie, simply because the movie was so well shot; it might not have truly scared a seasoned veteran of the genre like myself, but it certainly got to my wife (who, to be fair, is naturally scared of supernatural forces), while every sequence has at least one or two creepy scenes that just naturally reinforced why I love the genre so much.

As seems to be a recurring theme with the genre as of late, the strength of the stories are carried by the performances, and the two standouts here are Andy Nyman, as the skeptical professor, and the aforementioned Alex Lawther, as Simon Rifkind. Lawther is no surprise here—he is clearly one of the greatest young actors working today. He not only has that rare ability to cover a wide range of emotions, but can switch between them on a dime—two things we see on full display here.

The bigger shock is Nyman, who adapted this for the screen (along with Jeremy Dyson) from their own stage play, and who also directed the film together. While it might seem straightforward that someone with a theatrical background could easily segue into the world of film, that's not at all the case; they are two distinct disciplines. Just because you're a good TV or film actor doesn't at all mean it will automatically translate to theater, and vice versa. While the stage is probably less forgiving—there are no chances for alternate takes—acting on a film set also comes with its own set of obstacles; for Nyman to so strongly translate his character to the screen is an astonishing accomplishment in its own right.

It's not perfect, but it's hard to imagine Ghost Stories being executed any better than it is here, and that's saying something. Dyson and Nyman have crafted a strong horror film that maintains an impressive level of consistency across all of the tales; even if you aren't scared, will still have you glued to the screen, wondering where all this is headed. The final twist—an overused plot device that can often singlehandedly ruin an entire movie—is rather brilliantly done, with callbacks and clues in each story that virtually require a repeat viewing in order to put all the pieces together.

If you want a solid horror film to get you in the Halloween spirit, or just the perfect film for a cold, dark winter evening, then there's no need to look any farther than this one.

RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

Downrange (2017)

Director: Ryûhei Kitamura
Writer(s): Kitamura, and Joey O'Bryan
Starring: Kelly Connaire, Stephanie Pearson, Rod Hernandez, and Anthony Kirlew

Downrange is a movie for people who aren't interested in wasting time on things like “characterization” or “context”: within the film's first five minutes, the story is completely set up for us. And a simple story it is: Six carpoolers, most of whom don't know each other, and who are each headed to their own unspecified locations, blow a tire in the middle of nowhere (with—surprise!--no cell phone signal) and are then picked off one by one by a former military sharpshooter hiding somewhere in the surrounding trees.

With this simple setup, director Ryûhei Kitamura subverts audience expectations, delivering a devilish film that's a grueling exercise in bloodshed and tension, even for more “advanced” horror fans. I imagine many of the poor reviews of this are from people who expected a more “lighthearted” killing spree, but Kitamura's focus on the heartless, cold-blooded killer who, we can only assume, lies in wait for “prey”, allows him a virtually blank canvas to destroy long-held taboos: children are murdered, a dying character gasps for breath (which I've since learned is a Kitamura trademark), people helplessly look on as loved ones die, and every murder is carried out in excruciating, almost-too-graphic detail, from a nameless murderer with no feeling or remorse or sense of mercy, and whose backstory and motives are never revealed. It's almost the antithesis of what horror movies have become, but what they should always have been: actually horrifying.

Unfortunately, Kitamura's commitment to the visceral aspects don't translate to the writing, which presents the same standard collection of cardboard cutouts for its characters: there's the token black man, the young lovers, the good-looking single guy, the tough knowledgeable woman, and the timid, shy female. Many of these characters are so annoying that you're begging for the killer to off them as quickly as possible. (And, of course, the two worst offenders are the ones that make it the farthest, adding a dose of anger to the proceedings on the part of the viewer.) The acting is also hit-or-miss, though I would venture to say that, at least for a horror movie, the cast is above-average overall.

While those issues certainly knock the film down several pegs, preventing it from being the classic it could have been with a more experienced cast, there's no denying that this is a brutal film that takes horror back to its roots. It's primitive, ugly, and violent, and overall accomplishes the basic things that it sets out to do.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas in Mississippi (2017)

Director: Emily Moss Wilson
Writer(s): Marcy Holland
Starring: Jana Kramer, Wes Brown, Faith Ford, and Trace Masters

I was just thinking about how this holiday season has been pretty good to us in terms of movie selection—Christmas Coupon notwithstanding—and so of course it was time to run into one that tests the limits of human patience like Christmas in Mississippi.

In this one, a photographer named Holly (Jana Kramer) goes back to her hometown for Christmas, several years after a horrific storm demolished most of it. She volunteers to help out with the town’s annual Christmas light show—the first time they will be doing it since that terrible hurricane. However, she has second thoughts when she learns her high school boyfriend is running the show…typical hijinx ensues. Oh, and this stupid bitch is also randomly looking for the owner of a stuffed reindeer she finds on a street, a plot point that is frequently forgotten about, at least by the audience, who will have a hard enough time handling the rest. Besides, who in the hell would care to find the owner of a random crusty-ass toy that they found in the middle of a busy street?!

This one blows, thanks to incredibly stupid characters who go around assuming everything (at one point, Holly nearly breaks apart a relationship because she completely makes up a story surrounding an innocent event); an annoying mom character (Faith Ford!) who tries hooking up her own daughter, yet is somehow completely oblivious to the fact a man from town (Richard Karn!) likes her; and an annoying kid character who can’t act, and is unfortunately a big part of the stupid story (“Oh, look how great Mike is for taking care of his brother’s child while he’s serving in the military!”). I mean seriously, I wanted to punch the kid in the face and throw him off a roof every time he appeared on screen.

It also commits the most foul of all offenses, at least as far as I’m concerned: I can’t stand it when they jam the perfection of the main character down your throat so far that you virtually choke, just so you understand how “special” and “selfless” they are. For example, when characters volunteer at soup kitchens, or help an elderly woman across the street, or visit sick kids at a hospital. Here, they do that with both characters, cramming all of their accomplishments and selflessness in your face every chance they get, as if the filmmakers couldn’t find any other way to naturally present two good-hearted people without rubbing your face in it. It's never cute: it's positively gag-inducing.

I gotta admit, Jana Kramer grew on me as the movie went on—she has a warm, attractive smile, and is the best actor in this whole mess—but her character was so stupidly written that I just couldn’t like her at all. This movie puts the “miss” in “Mississippi”, that’s for sure.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Wow, how romantic these two are, lugging the dumbass kid with them everywhere so he can ruin everyone’s mood.
• How is it so hard for actors to pretend to take drinks out of cups, or for propmasters to fill a cup with liquid? Pay close attention to cups in any of these movies, because usually they’re either empty, or characters won’t even accurately go through proper drinking motions.
• Also, dig that “milkshake” Mike makes for Holly, which literally comes out looking like chocolate milk. WHO’S IN CHARGE OF THESE GODDAMNED LIQUIDS ON SET?!
• Those are some depressing-ass photos to fill up a family diner with.
• Wow, Holly's a moron. Who agrees to hang out with someone the day they know they’re leaving, just to spare someone’s feelings? And if she cares about him so much, why didn’t she tell him the moment she found out?
• So glad you moved two tables out of the way so you could slow-dance in the same two-fucking-foot area.

OVERALL: 2.5/10

TRAILER

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

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

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

MARVEL-LESS MARVISTA: House of the Witch (2017)

Director: Alex Merkin
Writer(s): Neil Elman
Starring: Emily Bader, Darren Mann, Michelle Randolph, and Coy Stewart

If this were from any other studio, House of the Witch would just be another tired retread of the stale “killer entity” theme that's been done to death over the last few years. In the hands of MarVista Entertainment—the studio responsible for many of the weekly Hallmark romance and Lifetime “Stalker of the Week” movies—it's probably the closest thing to a “triumph” that they have ever accomplished.

Don't get me wrong: it's a bad movie. But it's the kind of “bad” every other studio churns out, rather than MarVista's own brand of “bad”: the unintentional laughs are kept somewhat in check, the writing is less lazy than usual, and—dare I say—some of the special effects nearly manage to approach the level of “good”. Hey, “nearly” is closer than most anything else I've seen out of them, so take it as a compliment.

A group of seven high schoolers sneak into a house rumored to be under the spell of a demonic witch. One-by-one, they are picked off in semi-grisly fashion as the witch—who looks like fog when moving--protects her territory. That's it: there are no real twists, no scares, no meaningful character development; it's just a straightforward march toward death for our poor youth.

And yet, there are some things to like here: It's gleefully violent, at least by the studio's conservative standards; occasionally profane (I think a couple of characters might swear); almost sexual; and there are actually a couple of eerie sequences. Now, that's not to say any of it is genuinely scary—the story is far too predictable, and the actors far too...”inexperienced” for anything resembling terror to creep in—but just the fact that the studio responsible for creating total garbage like Work Wife has made something resembling an actual movie is a feat in and of itself.

There are times when MarVista “logic” tries to force itself in, like characters who constantly back up for no reason, throw three eggs at a house and call it an egging, and an awfully protracted scene in a room with a haunt where the main character spins around for about five minutes while loud sounds play on the soundtrack as literally nothing else happens, but they are limited in comparison to most of their other productions.

House of the Witch isn't the type of movie that you can “recommend” to anyone, because that word insinuates it's a movie that they should see, and with legitimately good media being released daily, there's really no reason to settle for anything less. But if you're in the mood for something that you can just pop in, put your brain on autopilot, and forget about immediately after seeing it, there's enough entertainment value contained within—both intentional and unintentional, but mostly the latter—that it should carry you through to the end.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 5/10

TRAILER

MARVEL-LESS MARVISTA: 12 Feet Deep (aka The Deep End / Trapped Sisters) (2017)

Director: Matt Eskandari
Writer(s): Eskandari, and Michael Hultquist
Starring: Nora-Jane Noone, Alexandra Park, Diane Farr, and Tobin Bell

There's seriously more drama in this poster than there is the entire movie.

We were actually, legitimately excited to see 12 Feet Deep, for a number of reasons, and all of them point to an anti-MarVista MarVista movie: 1.) The trailer gives nothing away, unlike most of their thriller previews which literally give away even the twist; 2.) the trailer is professionally edited, and the movie professionally shot, making it look like a legitimate movie; 3.) the plot breaks away from obsessed students and teachers to deliver an intriguing premise that’s way outside of their norm. Would we be rewarded for our sense of adventure, or punished because of it?

It didn’t take long to realize that a MarVista movie is a MarVista movie, no matter how flashy or professional the trailer is.

Bree and Jonna are two sisters who, through a pretty much completely impossible and stupid event, become trapped underneath the fiberglass cover of an Olympic-size public pool, trying to get an engagement ring that fell in. No problem, you’re thinking, all they have to do is wait until morning and they’re golden, right? Wrong! It happens to be a holiday weekend, as we are informed thanks to a typed up notice that the pool's owners tack to a bulletin board about an hour before they close, so they are forced to survive under the cover for three whole nights.

As intrigued as I was by the trailer, and as disturbing as the idea of being trapped under a cover would be, it took me but five minutes to realize that, if it’s anything like it’s pictured here, it would actually be pretty boring. After all, this being a public pool means that there are no terrifying creatures lurking within, and there’s the benefit of a shallow end, two things that pretty much negate the potential for any “natural” scares. (Claustrophobia could have made things interesting, and would be an actual concern for people trapped in real life, but neither of our heroines seem to suffer from it.)

Even the writers realized how boring and thin the foundation for this story was, so in order to inject as much tension as possible, and to provide a little “story” with which they could hang a formula around, there are some other elements at work here: Jonna is a recovering drug addict who may or may not still be using; Bree is a diabetic that must rely on insulin shots to keep her blood sugar regulated; and Clara is the pool janitor, fired that day but allowed to work out her scheduled shift (alone, oddly) who has a personal vendetta against the world…naturally, once she discovers there are two people trapped in her pool, she finds the perfect guinea pigs to take out her frustrations upon.

Unfortunately, none of it works, because it all just feels like a movie straining to make up for an ill-advised plot: any time you rely entirely on a series of health problems and coincidences to drag the story along, you're putting a lot of faith in your audience to just go along with it, and there are only so many things the audience can forgive before it all becomes laughably obvious. Take, for instance, Bree's diabetes symptoms, which seem to come and go simply to fit the dramatic needs of the screenplay. Movie running out of excitement? Oh no, her blood sugar’s so low that she’s nearly unconscious, with no possible treatment options within reach! Writers write themselves into a corner? Whoops, nevermind! Now she's perfectly healthy and functional in the next scene, just in time to give her pitiful, whiny sister a reassuring pep talk about how no one thinks she's a fuck-up and how she's a great and wonderful person that the world would miss if she were gone (all lies, by the way).

Ditto goes for Clara, the fired janitor who switches back and forth from psychopathic aggressor, to being stabbed in the ear by a sharp piece of shrapnel, to a misunderstood victim. As it turns out, she's not a bad person, just a victim of circumstance, much like her two trapped guinea pigs, a shared notion that gives them all something to bond over, and that brings the story to a simplified, "happy" ending that just as easily could have occurred much quicker to save everyone the hassle of trying to stay awake for 90 minutes.

Honestly, there's not all that much to say about 12 Feet Deep, because there's not really much of note that happens. And most of that boils down to the entire project being a failure from conception, centering its story around a mostly boring non-event, and then cramming in as many coincidental moments as possible in an effort to create enough artificial tension to carry it along to the finish line; a finish line that isn't at all worth the time and patience involved in making it that far.

The lead actresses--although playing poorly-written, overly annoying characters—are better than the material deserves, and the movie is shot competently; it's also at least a change from the typical MarVista thriller, which typically involve some kind of weird obsession or love triangle. Other than that, there's really no reason to even acknowledge its existence.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Aren't pool drains typically in the center of a pool? So then how does the pool operator not notice two grown women swimming in it when he takes one final glance before closing the pool cover?
• I hate both of these girls. Could they both just die?
• All Clara has to do to stop the video cameras from recording is turn off the monitor, a method that would defeat the entire purpose of having a camera system and that works in direct contradiction to every single video monitoring system ever.
• How do these characters constantly lose sight each other, despite being confined to the wide-open expanse of a pool?
• One character's advice after Clara turns on the jets to fill up the pool with more water is to “block the jets!”, a very logical fight-or-flight response given the dozens of jets spread across an entire pool's length and their confinement to a 5 ft. frame and four limbs.
• Being a former junkie, you would think Jonna would have much better negotiation/bargaining skills than she does.

RATING: 3/10

TRAILER

47 Meters Down (2017)

Director: Johannes Roberts
Writer: Roberts, and Ernest Riera
Starring: Mandy Moore, Claire Holt, Matthew Modine, and Chris Johnson

Mandy Moore is one of the dullest actresses on the planet. She’s been pigeonholed—happily, it seems—as the perfect actress for completely boring characters. Have a prude? She’ll play it. Have a character who’s allergic to having fun? Sign her up. Watching her in movies, you get the sense that you’re really watching her, and the results couldn’t be more off-putting.

Well now, she gets a chance to play that exact same character again in 47 Meters Down, a movie that can’t help but suck despite a naturally-terrifying premise that plays on primal human fears.

Moore plays Lisa, a boring woman who has just broken up with her boyfriend for—get this—being boring (no joke!) She goes to an island with Kate, her sister, but not to have fun or spend time with her sibling, but rather in an attempt to win her ex back. (How, you may be wondering? Her thought process is, if he sees pics of her online having fun, he’ll fall in love with her all over again. Wow, boring and completely fucking stupid!)

While on vacation, they two girls meet up with two attractive male strangers, who suggest they go diving in a shark cage, because you know, what else is there to do on an island? Of course, Lisa can’t be bothered with such a potentially exciting idea and dismisses it instantly, while Kate desperately urges her to go along. (Actually, in this case, I might be on Lisa’s side: being stranded thousands of yards from land with complete strangers, and in a foreign land, probably isn’t a smart idea.) 

Thankfully for the viewers, Kate wins, saving us from having to watch a movie consisting only of Lisa sitting alone in her beach hotel room, sobbing to pictures of her ex-boyfriend.

Before you know it, the two girls are being lowered into the ocean—by complete strangers, thousands of miles from their home country, just for reiteration—in the world’s oldest, rustiest shark cage. What could possibly go wrong? I’ll tell you: the pole holding the cage rips off, sending the duo plummeting to the titular underwater level.

That’s when the “action” starts, and all of a sudden Lisa’s version of the movie doesn’t seem so bad: It has the feel of an amusement park ride, with convenient scares popping out then retreating at set stages, and walkie communication with the boat (whose inhabitants oddly stick around, despite having no emotional attachment or investment with these two girls whatsoever) coming and going whenever is best for the sake of the story.

The usual and expected dangers apply, with a limited amount of oxygen and the surrounding sharks (who all seem to be blind given the amount of times they miss biting either of the main stars) being the two biggest attractions, and a case of “the bends” conveniently ruling out the possibility of merely swimming up to the surface and sparing us all a protracted movie-watching experience.

I must admit that 47 Meters Down does manage a couple effective moments, but that owes more to its claustrophobic setting than the skill of anyone involved in the production: watching characters have to remove diving gear deep underwater to fit through a small crevice (?), or running low on oxygen while trapped in a steel cage is enough to cause anxiety in most people, regardless of claustrophobia or fear of water. Unfortunately, even being given this head start, it's never able to build on it to create anything more than another forgettable big-budget thriller.

Its most egregious failure is also one that highlights the shortcomings of the American studio system: it foregoes the chance at a brilliant, brilliant finish—one that very nearly undid much of the damage the movie inflicted on my sense of wonder and excitement for the previous 80 minutes—for a decidedly “happier” ending that allows Mandy Moore’s character to survive almost out of nowhere. And any movie that allows Mandy Moore to survive has just committed an unforgivable offense.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

-Why do the guys even stick around to help, especially when several minutes go by at first without hearing any word from the girls (who conveniently can't reach the walkie)? They have no emotional attachment to them, and there's no indication anyone else even knows they're going.
-Why is Mandy Moore so goddamned boring? Even underwater she's annoying as shit.
-I don't understand the point of having the “ex-boyfriend” subplot; it serves absolutely no purpose in advancing the storyline.
-Apparently, sharks have a hard time eating stationary main characters with no diving experience, but can easily nab minor ones even when they are experienced divers on the move.
-The boat inhabitants call the Coast Guard, who will take an hour to get to the girls' position. Wouldn't waiting it out to conserve oxygen and energy be the smart thing to do?
-If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, remember that Mandy Moore would make excellent shark bait to buy more time.
-I still can't believe the forced ending. While still not entirely “happy”, it negates the movie's only moment of near brilliance.

RATING: 3/10

TRAILER

Bad Match (2017)

Director: David Chirchirillo

Writer(s): Chirchirillo

Starring: Lili Simmons, Kahyun Kim, Noureen DeWulf, and Jack Cutmore-Scott

David Chirchirillo’s Bad Match is the kind of thriller where you just get the feeling that nothing is as cut and dry as it seems. The tale at its center—about a woman who “falls victim” to a completely consensual one-night stand and then won’t let go—is as conventional as they come, yet gradually we begin to realize there might be more to the story. The inevitable twist is both shocking, and—like the best of them—logical upon review, ending the film on a strong note. And while its strength can’t overpower a few weak scenes, Bad Match is still a movie that is way better than we were expecting.

Harris is a twentysomething hipster who works at a marketing agency. When he’s not at work, he’s either playing online video games, or using online dating apps to source some new pussy. Harris is the perfect kind of douchebag for the millennial era: good-looking and suave, he has bagging women down to a science. He is also the master of escape, sneaking out in the middle of the night to return home in time for a couple hours of sleep before having to get ready for work.

One night, he “matches” with a girl named Riley. Upon waking up to find him sneaking out, she attempts to get him to stay the night. When he refuses, she is more persistent than the others, although he still manages to worm his way out of it. That persistence is a little bit of foreshadowing that she’s not like the other girls, and sees dating apps more for what the name implies, rather than for what guys like Harris use them for.

The following morning, Harris wakes up to texts from Riley—they don’t stop when he’s at work, either. Or when he’s at home trying to get stuff done for a big project he’s working on…a project that’s forgotten once she sends him a suggestive picture. That’s all it takes for his annoyance to disappear, and he invites her over to his place this time, to have another session of wild intercourse. Bad move.

He has to get up for work. She turned off the alarm. He has a big meeting that day and is late. Too late, it turns out. She apologizes. He doesn’t have time to wait for her to leave, so he bolts off to work in a hurry, assuming she will follow through on her plan to take an Uber home. But we know things aren’t going to be that easy for poor Harris; we’re probably the only ones not shocked when Riley is still at his house when he returns home.

She continues to call him in the ensuing days, and he continues to ignore her. Things reach a fever pitch when she catches him at a bar—on a day he said he was sick—with a couple of friends, and overhears him describing her as sad and pathetic, among other things. Understandably, this doesn’t sit well with her, and she curses him out, swears him off, and storms out of the door. And this is when things really start to spiral out of control for poor Harris. He loses his job. He’s arrested on child pornography charges. Desperate for a confession from Riley to clear his name, he decides to take matters into his own hands.

Bad Match been declared an attack on toxic masculinity and dating apps; to agree to the former argument, one would have to dismiss some truly psychotic behavior from our “heroine”, yet merely calling it a takedown of dating app culture oversimplifies the film, calling to mind any number of tired attacks on the current climate of millennials and internet dating. Bad Match at least strives to be more than just your typical “woman goes crazy” thriller, and it largely succeeds, thanks to great performances from the cast, and the twist that brings it all together in the end. It’s slightly undone by some truly unbelievable sequences—as in, completely illogical actions that detract from the overall believability of the story—but these are thankfully kept to a minimum.

We had no ideas of what to expect going into it, with the movie being lumped in the “You May Also Like” section of Netflix with low-grade Lifetime-style schlock, but this is at least a suspense film with a brain.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

MARVEL-LESS MARVISTA: Dad Crush (aka My Teacher, My Obession) (2017)

Director: Damian Romay
Writer(s): Patrick Robert Young
Starring: Rusty Joiner, Lucy Loken, Laura Bilgeri, and Jana Lee Hamblin

aka Dad Crush

Well it's never really a good sign when a movie is available on different streaming platforms under different titles; it's also never a good sign when you see the Marvista logo the moment it starts up. That's two knocks for Dad Crush (on hoopla; My Teacher, My Obsession on Netflix) before the movie itself even starts.

The plot is standard fare for this kind of “thriller”: Chris (played by Rusty Joiner) is a father who uproots his daughter, Riley (Laura Bilgeri) and moves her to an unfamiliar town, where she must start all over again. He is a high-school English teacher, while his daughter, of course, happens to be in high school. Desperate for friends, she takes an immediate liking to Kyla, the mysterious camera-toting student who's always taking photos for the school yearbook, despite never once associating with anyone on the yearbook staff.

Kyla takes an immediate liking to Chris, of course herself a victim of daddy issues, and wants to make him her own—an idea that becomes even easier when it turns out he's secretly dating her mom. I won't get into the possible physics of that attraction, because it defies all logic, but then again, who watches these movies for realism? Anyway, Kyla won't let anyone get in her way, including her own mom and “best friend”, so she sets into motion a series of psychopathic lies and stunts destined to make Chris fall in love with her...well, in her own delusional mind, at least. It's not long before her "elaborate" facade starts unraveling around her, and the truth will be revealed at last.

If you're watching Dad Crush in the way I imagine most people watch Marvista movies, this one is rife with the kinds of scenes and illogic that you came for. Like the scene where the unpopular Riley throws herself an eighteenth birthday party at her own house, one that's somehow filled with dozens upon dozens of kids despite her rarely associating with anyone else but Kyla, who she reveals during a fight (in front of everyone, of course) is her “only friend”. It must be tough being a loner with a hundred kids willing to go to your birthday party. Also, never mind the fact that Chris, a teacher in case you needed reminding, is home during all of it, which I'm guessing would be just a mild conflict of interest to have half the school on your property for a non-school related function. Also never mind the fact that Chris and Riley are in the same class to begin with, something I'm guessing also would never happen.

Or how about the hilarious sequence where Kyla sets her mom up to think Chris is cheating on her with a student, via a series of texts from a stolen cell phone. Angry (and, of course, not listening to his pleas at all despite no other evidence pointing to such a thing), she throws him out, at which point he dejectedly sits out in his truck—in front of their house—where Kyla goes out to “comfort” him by climbing on top of him and forcing her lips onto his, while he “fights back” by simply saying “no” over and over again. Wait, what? So a beefcake high school teacher dumped by a student's mom for supposedly having an illicit relationship with another student would just let the mom's daughter climb on top of him right in front of their house, despite clearly having enough upper body strength to throw her into the next town, if he wanted to? In perhaps the most surprising turn in any low-grade thriller ever, the mom doesn't even see it happen, but if I'm a framed guy trying to prove I don't fuck my students, I'm probably going to have a little more resolve in me than that.

There are many more nuances not worth delving into, like the popular school slut trying to “battle” Kyla for the teacher's “affection”, but we all know how that's going to play out. Also not worth mentioning is the cliffhanger finale, which anyone even semi-familiar with these movies is going to see coming a mile away.

There is one small plus in this whole mess: Credit must be given to the casting department, at least somewhat, because the two leads are what they should be: attractive. While having the teacher be a musclebound freak was a little overboard for me (I don't recall ever seeing a muscle-laden teacher in all my schooling years, save for maybe PE class), Rusty Joiner at least looks like someone his age should look: all too often in these movies, the dad character seems to look the same age as the daughter. Meanwhile, Lucy Loken as the obsessive, flirty high school student is one of the most attractive female leads in any low-rent thriller I've ever seen: it's at least believable, then, when he falls under her spell...well, from a physical standpoint anyway. (And she looks nothing like she does in the movie's poster, which slathers on the makeup and Photoshop effects to a disgusting degree despite her natural beauty.)

The casting lost me a bit with the choice of Kyla's mom--one of those "no way this relationship would ever happen" mismatches that seem obligatory in these movies--but you can't win them all. Other than looks, the cast largely seems capable of acting, but unfortunately aren't required to do much of that at all, while what little talent they do display is overshadowed by the poor lines they're required to deliver, and the baffling actions their characters are required to make.

In summation, if you watch these movies the way we do—to laugh at all the illogical character actions, stilted dialogue, pointless characters, and over-the-top hijinx—you're going to find a lot here to “like”. It's one of those movies that's so bad you swear the cast and crew had to somehow be in on it; the kind of movie that seems impossible to make with any amount of genuine sincerity; the kind of movie where you just wait for that subtle nod that everyone involves understands how atrocious it all is and that they're just in it for the paycheck. As layers upon layers of improbability somehow align; as you sit and stare in shocked disbelief that anyone can take this with any shred of seriousness; as you pray to the gods for a sign that a studio full of grown men are in on the joke that they've made...that's when the end credits start to roll.

RATING: 6/10. (This is a rating based on "entertainment" value, and is in no way comparable to the ratings of "real" movies.)

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas Wedding Planner (2017)

Okay, it's probably unfair to even rate this, considering we only made it about ten minutes in before we canceled our Netflix subscription, smashed our television set, and gouged out our eyes to prevent ourselves from ever having to witness something so cruel and unusual again; don't consider this a “review” so much as a warning.

This is awful. It's the kind of movie that thinks all it takes to make people laugh are to have two characters run into each other, something that honestly happens three times in the small window of time we were watching. It's the kind of movie that somehow wants to overcome you with holiday cheer, yet throws in characters so despicable that you want to murder them. Of course, I'm sure by the end said characters realize the errors of their ways and make a complete 180, but you shouldn't make your movie feel like an obstacle course to get that far.

It's a shame, too, because lead Jocelyn Hudon is beautiful—one of the cutest girls I've ever seen in a schmaltzy holiday role--but is completely lost amongst the schticky acting and tired story. In this, Hudon is Kelsey, an up-and-coming wedding planner whose first job is also her biggest: Planning her cousin's extravagant wedding. But when she runs into a slightly attractive mega-douche Connor (who even has the douchiest name imaginable!), her world is overturned. Well, not at first, because they hate each other, but something tells me the spirit of Christmas will help change their tune! 

Lots of Disney-grade acting (in the defense of those, they are for pre-pubescent children), coincidences (oh, the man that bought the last scone at the coffeeshop is the cousin's ex-boyfriend?), and totally illogical scenes follow, such as when Kelsey is tasked with removing the mega-douche from a wedding party, even though the guy seems amicably there by all counts. And it's all within the first ten minutes. The idea that this could go on for almost 9 times that length something that most humans cannot fathom. For die-hard, unassuming fans of this kind of movie only.

RATING: 0.5/10 

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Angela's Christmas (2017)

Okay, here we go: Time to ruin the holidays for everyone with a bah-humbug moment; we all knew it was coming anyway, so might as well just put it out there to get it over with: I hate the ideology that perpetuates the notion that kids, especially really little ones, don't have to do anything to be cute. There, I said it. I think it's lazy, and furthermore, I don't subscribe to that idea. Yes, I think my child is adorable, even when he does things that annoy me (which, let's be honest, is quite frequently). The vast majority of parents think the same thing about theirs. That's just healthy and normal. But I don't expect other people to think the same way about my child as I do, and I sure as hell don't think other peoples' children are cute, just by default.

This translates to media, where one of my biggest pet peeves are movies that center themselves around small children, but don't give them anything meaningful to do; they rely solely on the fact it's a child to carry it across the finish line, and people gobble it up the same way they do animal videos. Angela's Christmas is that kind of movie, where we're supposed to find it so adorable that a child steals a Jesus statue from a church nativity scene “just to keep it warm” that we're just automatically involved and invested emotionally for thirty whole minutes, no matter how void of substance the rest of it is.

I get the feeling the only reason movies like this exist is to allow the writer to run on auto-pilot; they can basically phone in a sappy story with a child at the center, exert little effort, and rake in the cash. Our inherent ability to immediately identify children as the picture of innocence means the average viewer will automatically love any positive child character, without the need for any unnecessary literary obstacles, such as character development. So in this case, the entire movie is narrated by the little girl's future son, as an example of how perfect and angelic and pure she was, and presumably still is. How this story, which would be just a cute anecdote within the annals of most families, is somehow the one that most completely sums her up as a person, sixty years later, really just speaks to how boring the rest of her life must have been.

Of course her family, which consists of single mother (cue another lazy emotional checkpoint!) and three brothers, eventually find out she stole it, and the mother makes her take it back to the church. This leads to the only unpredictable sequence in the whole affair, in which the priest, so maddened by this child's theft, actually expects her to be arrested and taken to jail. A small child. On Christmas Eve. Granted, it takes place a long time ago, so maybe children weren't automatically revered for every little thing they did back then; either way, the thought that a man of the cloth could react with such vilification toward a little child who is voluntarily returning a doll she stole under cute pretenses is rather bewildering, and completely nonsensical. But of course it functions as yet another cheap emotional payoff; we are relieved that the officer decides not to arrest the little girl, thus returning her to her family for Christmas, and more heartstrings are plucked! I'm surprised they didn't give Angela a disability just to exploit another emotional loophole in human nature while they were at it!

At least even the worst Hallmark-style romance movies know they're bad from the outset, and the audience knows exactly what to expect going in. But the most offensive kind of movies, are trite movies that somehow think they are making some kind of profound, poignant statement, even though they offer nothing of substantial value. I know, I know, families want formulaic movies for the holidays; I get that. They want positive movies that can make them feel good about Christmas traditions, and nothing is better than a poor family (did I not mention the family of four with the single mother is poor?) showing that materialistic wants are trumped by the good inside all of us. And it will no doubt succeed, given that it checks off all those requirements, and is being peddled by Netflix. It also may very well may fit the bill for families with young children (our two year old loves it), who are too young to understand its meaning, yet are taken by its animation style.

But aside from the music, which is simple and effective and features a lullaby-style vocal track that hits all the notes the movie fails to hit, for me, the most positively life-affirming thing about Angela's Christmas, is that it's only thirty minutes long.

RATING: 2.5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Snowmance (2017)

If you want a surprising example of "perfect" holiday romance for me, this is it.

A woman, Sarah, and her best male friend, Nick, make a snowman (called a “snow beau”, and named Cole) every year, that captures all of the qualities she is looking for in her ideal boyfriend, with the idea that one day she will find him in real life. Well, twenty years on and she still hasn't found that man of her dreams...until a weird but handsome man, also ironically named Cole, shows up on her front door out of nowhere. Immediately, she knows he is the one, and he promises her the life of adventure that she has always dreamed of. But is he too good to be true? Or will she realize that the man of her dreams is actually the one that's been right under her nose the entire time?

This one can't help but be a stinker, right? Actually, it's quite the opposite, with a charming cast all-around, good acting, and more genuinely funny moments than we've ever seen in a Hallmark-style romance movie. Sure, it's predictable as all hell, but it also benefits from slightly eschewing the normal earmarks of such movies: namely, there are no unbelievable fights between the main love interests that spring out of nowhere just to fulfill genre expectations, and—at the risk of slight spoilers—no evil bad guy that suddenly shows his true colors. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of other “required” scenes that get checked off, but they're not annoyingly done, and all fit within the theme of the story.

At the risk of sounding shallow, the cast (save for Cole) isn't traditionally attractive, but they add depth and personality to their characters that are otherwise missing from other such movies, and the chemistry is there. (Hey, in my defense, the attractiveness of cast is generally the only satisfaction one can fall back on if things go south with the story, which is a common occurrence in flicks of this type.)

Honestly, this is one that we had no expectations for, and, while saying it “blew us away” might be quite an exaggeration, it was not only enjoyable for what it was, but honest-to-goodness just enjoyable as a lighthearted piece of fluff. One of the rare wins for MarVista Entertainment, which has to be one of the worst production companies of all time (yet is clearly successful enough to be able to make dozens upon dozens of these movies every minute).

RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: The Christmas Calendar (2017)

Not to be confused with the similarly-titled Netflix original The Holiday Calendar, this MarVista-produced (oh God) holiday garbage is about Emily, a woman who runs a bakery in a small town (of course it’s a small town). Gerrard is the Frenchman who runs a rival bakery in a supermarket across the street. But, despite making it painfully obvious from the beginning, Emily is too stupid to realize that the man is interested in her, and what should be a quick ten-second movie is instead drawn out to feature length. Lucky us. Oh, and the movie gets its title from a random calendar that shows up in the woman’s bakery one day; the whole town has nothing better to do than to get caught up in the mystery of who the secret admirer is that sent it.

I don’t know if my definition of a “good” Hallmark-style Christmas movie is that different from everyone else’s, but this one hit every single note of annoyance for me: There are the old gossiping grandmas who clearly get a load of excitement from figuring out the mystery man; the villain attempting to take down the main star in the form of the manager of the supermarket across the street; the fact that the holiday calendar provides such scintillating mystery that the hashtag GOES VIRAL nationwide; the small-town setting; the clear and unbridled stupidity of the main girl, who believes the male baker is out to steal her business, misses all of his blatant cues of interest in her, and then suddenly, of course, falls in love with him on the writer's cue. It's like a hall-of-fame of tropes, all gathered right here for the non-discerning holiday romance lover.

Really, the only impressive thing in all of this is Zeb’s outstanding French accent, which isn’t one of those “mostly English but slightly foreign” accents, but a full-on, hard-to-understand-sometimes, put-closed-captioning-on-so-you-don't-miss-a-line heavy one that shows a dedication to this that no one else in the production had. I also liked the character of Ivy, although I still can’t tell if her hilariously deadpan delivery was intentional, or just a result of poor acting; either way, her awkwardness is a rare bright spot in a movie that’s so full of schlocky emotional drivel that it becomes almost physically painful. This is all just by-the-numbers whimsy, but not the good kind: a movie so impossibly full of holiday charm that it works in reverse, sapping all the holiday excitement from the viewer, and leaving behind a lobotomized mass of emptiness. Don’t be surprised if you walk away from the viewing unable to feel happy ever again.

RATING: 2/10

TRAILER