Ibiza (aka Ibiza: Drunk Love)(2018)

Director: Alex Richenbach
Writer(s): Lauryn Kahn
Starring: Gillian Jacobs, Vanessa Bayer, Phoebe Robinson and Richard Madden

After wading through a bunch of corny holiday rom-coms, sometimes it’s refreshing to clear our palates with some less family-oriented fare. And after searching through Netflix for what felt like an eternity, we stumbled upon Ibiza: Drunk Love, which is certainly one of the worst titles ever thrown together by modern man.*

First things first, the movie was the center of controversy upon its release, but it has nothing to do with the film's occasional gross-out content: Instead, the actual island of Ibiza itself took offense to two things: 1.) The film's "negative" portrayal of the party island (there's honestly nothing negative about it, unless they just want to distance themselves from the whole "party image" entirely); and 2.) The fact that it wasn't filmed in Ibiza at all, but rather Croatia. I have a feeling their anger was actually a fit of jealousy that mainly arose from point number 2. Nevertheless, it seems to be all water under the bridge, because after news reports that the island was actually going to sue Netflix for the above reasons, no further action seems to have been taken. (Or could it just have been publicity for the then-newly released movie? Hmm....)

Harper is a twenty- or early thirtysomething gal who is sent by her boss to Spain, for work. Her two best friends, Leah and Nikki, pretty much weasel their way in to going with her, figuring they can chill while Harper is busy securing an account, or whatever vague thing she’s supposed to be doing there. It really doesn't matter, because the focus isn’t on her job (surprise!) but rather Leo West, a world-famous DJ with whom Harper spends an awkward moment.

There are immediate sparks between the two, who go their separate ways before sharing so much as even a kiss. Nevertheless, the seeds of love have been planted in Harper’s mind, so she vows to track him down once again so they can push their platonic friendship into boyfriend-girlfriend territory. Her friends are there to offer moral support, and of course, comedic moments, as the three get into all sorts of trouble involving “residual jizz”, hallucinogens, and plenty of stuff in between.

I’m honestly confused with all the hate leveled its way. Sure, it’s a by-the-numbers “love” story that sometimes sinks to crude depths to gain a laugh or two, and sure said laughs are largely predictable, but it’s rare that a cast comes together with this much chemistry. And no, I’m not talking about the interplay between Harper and Leo, which is “sweet”, but not really worth the time spent “harping” on it. (Get it? Her name is Harper, haha.)

Instead, I’m talking about the combination of Gillian Jacobs, Phoebe Robinson and Vanessa Bayer, who play Harper, Leah and Nikki, respectively, and whose friendship actually spans most of the movie’s running time. In fact, the “romantic” portion almost functions as bookends, with the two would-be lovebirds forging a connection early on, and then Harper spending the rest of the time searching for Leo, until they are reunited in the end. Instead, it mostly comes off as a "buddy comedy" with some "romance" sprinkled in in an attempt to capture the attention of a wider audience. It should come as no surprise, then, that the best parts of the movie involve watching the three girls make fools of themselves in a variety of weird situations.

Michaela Watkins is also perfect as Harper’s foul-mouthed boss, whose brutal quips frequently go over the edge from merely being “mean”, into flat-out abusive. Yet she does it with such ridiculous verve that it’s almost hard not to “like” her, somehow...deep down, maybe. It’s just a shame she’s not in it much after an initial appearance in the beginning, although there are plenty of laughs in between to prevent you from missing her too much.

Let’s be honest here: This is nowhere close to a classic comedy. It’s crude, it’s rude and it derives much of its laughs from predictable situations. But thanks to the cast, it’s an above-average one, with excellent moments of comedic timing and enough laughs to keep most comedy fans satisfied. Like most films of its ilk, it does delve into dramatics occasionally, but thankfully those moments are few and far between; so few and distanced, in fact, that it honestly seems weird to even include the whole love angle at all. (It was based on the writer's actual trip to the island, so maybe she actually did find true love there? I dunno.)

In the end, if it’s a romance you’re looking for, you’d be better off looking elsewhere. But if you like your comedy awkward and occasionally over-the-top, then ignore all the negative reviews, and take this trip to Ibiza...for some Drunk Love? I still don't get that stupid title. 

RATING: 6/10.

*For reasons unknown, the title was originally just the much better Ibiza. In fact, that's still the title in a vast majority of marketing materials, such as the above poster image. For whatever reason, at some point after the movie's release, the Drunk Love subtitle was added, a change that makes sense for virtually no reason, considering the "romance" centering the story has nothing to do with being drunk. 

TRAILER

No Sleep 'Til Christmas (2018)

Director: Phil Traill
Writer(s): Steve Smith and Traill
Starring: Odette Annable, Dave Annable, Charles Michael Davis and Alphonso McAuley

It’s amazing how far chemistry can take even the cheesiest of rom-coms. Take, for example, No Sleep Till Christmas, a movie that - even within the confines of the corny holiday romance subgenre - sounds even dumber than most. And yet, somehow, against the odds, it works, due almost entirely to the chemistry between the two stars.

Lizzie (Odette Annable) is engaged to Josh (“The Vampire Diaries” Charles Michael Davis), who she thinks is the love of her life. She is an event planner and he is a doctor, but while their careers are on opposite ends of the spectrum, they both connect in their mutual need for organization in their lives. 

There is one little problem though: she can’t sleep with Josh. No, not like that: She literally cannot sleep next to him. Like, at all. While he’s out like a light, she’s either tossing and turning next to him, or staring off into space; she’s lucky to get an hour a night. Nevermind the fact that such little sleep over a long period of time would not only be a serious medical issue that would quickly lead to hallucinations and, eventually, death (look up fatal familial insomnia and prepare to have your mind blown); here, it only causes minor discomfort and a lack of focus at her job.

One night, she is out driving when she runs over a pedestrian. This is Billy, a man who’s completely the opposite of her: He works at a bar - a sign in these movies that he has no aim or career aspirations - is messy, and takes life as it comes, rather than planning it all out in advance. The only thing he shares with Lizzie is a similar case of insomnia; he can't sleep next to anyone, including his ex Nicola. 

She drives him to a hospital and, for reasons that don’t quite make a lick of sense, the two decide to rest before heading inside to get him the treatment he may very well need. Well, wouldn’t you know it that the two both wake the next morning, several hours later, refreshed and rejuvenated after a long night’s sleep. (In the case of Billy, it’s probably just due to a concussion and/or massive internal injuries.)

Lizzie thinks she’s cured of her problem, but after several more sleepless nights next to her future husband, realizes that the situation goes much deeper: She can only sleep next to Billy. Well, we don’t know this for sure, because she doesn’t even try to sleep next to anyone else; for all we know, she may be able to sleep with everyone except Josh. At any rate, she makes Billy an awkward proposition: She will pay him to sleep next to her. It’s a bizarre offer that he initially refuses, until he realizes that he can use that money to help fund a bar he’s always dreamed of opening (wow, who knew that even bartenders could have dreams). 

At first, the duo sleep together in their car, much like they did that first night. But soon, they decide to go a little more upscale, meeting together for a couple hours at a time inside a hotel. Because that’s not going to raise any eyebrows in the completely guaranteed event that Josh eventually discovers her secret double life. 

The plot progresses more or less as you’d expect, and while it doesn’t really stray away from the tried-and-true formula, it gets an insane amount of mileage out of its likable cast. The two leads (who are married in real life) feed off of each other well, delivering some humorous banter (and a knack for comedic timing) that hits the funny bone. The rest of the cast is also capable, including Charles Michael Davis, although he is given the thankless task of being a serious, uptight character in a rom-com. (He does have a scene that surprisingly has some emotional resonance late in the movie, which hits a little bit harder given the otherwise lighthearted atmosphere.)

I suppose more traditional fans of this kind of schlock might be off-put by the storyline, as Lizzie really has no reason to leave Josh. He’s not the typical douchebag you find in these movies, where you’re essentially cheering for them to find someone else; his only “crime” is being too similar to her. Similarly, this is basically a Christmas movie in name and setting only. Those expecting some holiday cheer and scenes adorned with tinsel and Christmas trees will find this to be sorely lacking; it just happens to take place around Christmastime.

But at the same time, it delivers a message that some other holiday cheesefests completely avoid: That no matter what you have, it can always be better. Well, I don’t know if that’s the message, because that sounds rather dark…the point is, life's too short to settle for someone - or something - you're not into. It's not exactly deep, but it goes deeper than you'd expect from a movie about two people who can only fall asleep next to each other.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

Forever Christmas (aka Mr. 365) (2018)

Director: Christie Will Wolf
Writer(s): Gary Goldstein, based off the story "Mr. 365" by Ruth Clampett
Starring: Chelsea Hobbs, Christopher Russell, Matthew Kevin Anderson and Jill Morrison

Will Saunders is an attractive man who just so happens to celebrate Christmas every single day. He also employs a former homeless man, Hank, because when you’re this perfect, that’s the type of thing you just do. Sophia Worthy is a TV producer tasked with shooting a reality TV series with him at the center. There’s one little problem, though: Sophia isn’t a fan of the holiday season, which is exactly what makes her perfect for the job of interviewing someone who’s obsessed with it. She approaches Will, and he is understandably reluctant; he just wants to go about his daily business without interference, or attention, from the public. But the two share an undeniable bond and so it carries weight when Sophie reassures him that he will be painted in a positive light.

But enjoying Christmas 365 days a year is not something that comes without its fair share of problems: Will’s neighbor, Fred, is a curmudgeonly old guy who has filed an injunction against Will, barring him from putting Christmas lights up before November 1st. Why? No reason, really, except that he’s just an old guy with a permanent scowl frozen on his face, presumably from decades of being a smug asshole.

Anyway, Sophia and Will start to fall for each other (surprise!) but Sophie knows that if news of their relationship gets out, that she might be fired from her company, so they keep it on the down-low…until it gets out anyway thanks to Paul Rivera, Sophie’s nefarious boss. But he’s not just content with outing Sophia’s make-out session with Will: he also decides to take the innocent reality series and turn it into a smear campaign against Will, making him look like a bumbling idiot. (Although he does claim it was his bosses that wanted it, but still…have a spine!) This understandably upsets Will, who sees it as betrayal on Sophie’s part. After all, it’s the exact thing she promised would never happen!

Will true love overcome all blah blah blah blah? Blah blah blah blah blah blah!

You already know what’s going to happen just from reading the plot synopsis, so why are you even interested in watching it, or reading more about it? The two leads are very attractive, and seem to have a decent amount of chemistry together, which at least makes the romance aspect somewhat believable. They also deliver decent performances that are above the demands of the Z-grade material, and that are somewhat grounded in reality - the same can’t be said for the rest of the cast, who basically deliver theatrics that would feel more at home in a kids movie. The rest of the story is absurd…I’d call it a complete mess, but honestly, it’s no worse than anything else from Hallmark. 

In fact, I have a confession to make: the streaming service we watched this on somehow kept glitching out during the final ten minutes, and despite our best attempts, we were unable to actually finish it. But I have a feeling I can accurately fill in the blanks! 

I probably could have done the same if it glitched out within the first five.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• What the hell is with the poster art? It makes Sophie look like a creepy stalker as she peers out from behind a Christmas tree…
• What is the point of having the old guy in it at all? He spends the whole movie unconvincingly trying to look upset at Will, and then has a complete about-face at the end, for no apparent reason.
• Why are even decent examples of these movies so, so painful? And why do I keep subjecting myself to them?

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 6.5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas Cupcakes (2018)

Director: Dylan Pierce

Writer: Neil Chase, Nathan Usher

Starring: Cindy Busby, Erin Karpluk, Corey Loranger, and Fulvio Cecere

Christmas Cupcakes is the kind of Christmas movie that will appeal to the no doubt growing number of people that are either disgusted, or becoming so, at all the millions of holiday romances that come out every year. I mean, it started off modestly, with Lifetime and Hallmark being the main purveyors of that junk, but now it seems like every channel (and streaming services like Netflix) are jumping on the bandwagon—I feel like it’s becoming a bigger market than cocaine. And I guess it makes sense: People can’t seem to get their fill of them, while others are simply overstuffed on watching the same five stories play out over and over again.

But Christmas Cupcakes is different. Oh, there’s the haphazard story that seems like it was written and finalized in under three hours, and there’s also the occasional appearance of romance, just so it “fits” in with the genre, so all the typical earmarks of a holiday romance are here…there’s just no romance. It’s almost like the filmmakers wanted to tell their own story of a family struggling to maintain their bakery, kept getting their pitch denied, so they threw in a few Christmas references and a kiss, called it a Christmas movie…bingo! Instant greenlight!

For many, this idea will probably fall flat; it probably would have for me if it didn’t bring with it a certain sense of nolstalgia. You see, my wife and I watched dozens of Food Network shows while we were dating, and while we ran the gamut from cooking shows, to Guy Fieri’s latest adventure, we probably spent the most time on baking competitions. The aesthetic of the competition scenes are stellar for a (presumably) low-budget flick, as they get everything down from the lighting, camera angles, and even the cheesy jokes. (Unfortunately, that attention doesn't really translate well to the actual competition, which is completely devoid of any drama and doesn't even show any of the other contestants, outside the two main rivals.)

The Remo family is in a tough place: following the untimely death of the family patriarch, who also ran the bakery, sisters Kim and Gina are forced to decide whether to sell it, or continue its tradition. For maximum dramatic value, Gina is hesitant to take it over, because she has a well-paying job that she completely despises—all it takes is a bad day at work (and it seems all of them are) to convince her to give it a shot. But of course, it's not because she wants to, it's just because it's her best option.

While Kim has the drive to keep everyone together, she lacks the baking skills of her late uncle; that’s where Gina steps in. While she clearly isn't really all that into it, baking comes naturally to her, something that Kim somewhat resents. For her part, Gina resents the idea that Kim was always the “successful” one, while she was always seen as a failure and/or outcast (nothing like siblings bonding over perceived failures!). 

Then they learn of the “Grand Prix Dessert Challenge”, or something along those lines, which is a baking competition that awards the winner an astonishing $150,000 grand prize. Why, that’s almost exactly how far behind they are on payments for their bakery! Although Gina is once again reluctant to partake, she’s nudged ahead when she discovers that Kim went ahead and signed them up anyway, in a rather douche move. I hope they won't have a big fight that could threaten to derail their chances to win the dessert competition, thus giving them enough money to save the day and live happily ever after! Nah, I doubt that will happen, given their completely opposite demeanors.

Even outside of the overly clichéd “save the family bakery” story, there’s some good stuff here. The characters, for the most part, are solid, and there’s some pretty good interplay and (family) chemistry between them—it really feels like they could actually be related. Fulvio Cecere is perfect as the stereotypical Italian uncle, and provides some solid laughs. And of course, the performances are all heightened by the appearance of Cindy Busby, who is either adept at making poorly-written characters believable, or is just really good about selecting which holiday projects she pursues (no offense to her, but I’m thinking it’s the former).

Her character is actually an almost complete piece of shit, throwing temper tantrums when things don’t go her way, buckling at the first sight of pressure, and storming off over the stupidest little things. I could see where people would hate her, but things like that are the fault of the writers—she’s merely doing what she was hired to do--and she does it about as well as anyone else could do. There aren't too many other actresses I can think of that can almost guarantee a decent holiday movie, but she is certainly one of them.

The guy isn't really even worth mentioning, because he's in it more as a "rival" than a love interest. It's kind of a shame, because he's good-looking enough and also appears to be a decent actor, but there aren't really any sparks or chemistry between them. I'm honestly not sure if it's because they're in romance scenes so little, so their relationship isn't given enough screen time to "grow", or if it's just because they literally don't have the slightest bit of attraction to one another; either way, it will be a disappointment to the old-fashioned crowd that what little romance there is, is marred by two people who really don't seem to care about each other in the slightest.

In the end, if you're one of the few that like your cheesy holiday romances largely "romance free", (and a bonus if you're into televised baking competitions) Christmas Cupcakes is a great way to kill some time. It has funny characters, and a likeable cast, that all do their best to overcome the stale concept.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER
s

Christmas Capsules: Christmas With a Prince (2018)

Director: Justin G. Dyck
Writers: Keith Cooper
Starring: Kaitlyn Leeb, Nick Hounslow, Josh Dean, and Melinda Shankar

Kaitlyn Leeb must be a terrible person; at least, that’s what I assume. Maybe she kicks dogs, or accidentally ran over a child with her car while drunk several years back. Or shot a cop. I don’t know, but she must have done something, and it must have been so heinously bad that it justifies keeping a naturally attractive and talented actress confined to a lifetime of short-term TV jobs and holiday movies.

She’s that rare type of actress—at least within the realm of cheesy holiday movies—that can just brighten a scene up with just her smile. But she’s a true double threat, because beyond that, she can actually act; that's a rare commodity in this subgenre, where the actors are either good-looking, or can act. There aren't many actresses that I can't take my eyes off of when they're on screen, but she is one of them (although, as much as I'd like to say I want to see her in more of these for my own personal benefit, I wouldn't wish that upon anyone's career).

Here she plays Dr. Tasha, a pediatrician whose main concern in life are the kids under her care (and, in true Hallmark form, to a completely annoying degree). But through a random series of events, she finds herself taking care of Prince Alexander, a prince (surprise!) who breaks his leg in a ski accident. Rather than take him to a typical hospital, which will be swarming with paparazzi, the royal family decides to send him to Dr. Tasha’s establishment, as the two of them were childhood friends who went their own separate ways after a disagreement. Uh oh, no way this well thought out plan could spell trouble!

Despite some good chemistry between the leads, this one is a dud for a rather surprising reason: everyone else is a piece of shit in one way or another. Seriously, I don’t recall another cast of characters that frequently pissed me off so much. Yes, of course the mean ones all do a complete 180 and change their tunes around by the end of the movie, but that still means about three-quarters of the movie are filled with people that you don’t really even want to see.

There’s Dr. Tasha’s boss, a black woman (because there’s an unwritten rule that you must specify race if not white) who clearly puts profits above the lives of children in her care; she’s terrible for obvious reasons already, but is actually so heartless and evil that she would be better suited as an action movie villain. Then, there’s the prince’s dad, who of course is an entitled piece of crap who uses his pull to basically force Dr. Tasha into caring for his son. Even the characters that aren’t mean are nearly unbearable: Jeff, Dr. Tasha’s best friend, is the obligatory over-the-top comedian who forcefully jabs jokes in your face until you just want to smash his against a wall. His eventual love interest is Bella, an always-angry young woman who basically functions as the prince’s spokesperson/bodyguard, and who spends half the movie in hysterics wondering where the prince has gone, or getting jealous that Dr. Tasha is getting close with him. It’s like a collection of characters that you would never want to spend even a minute with, and the filmmakers thought you would want to have as your best friends.

It's the chemistry between the two leads that carry this one as far as it goes; unfortunately, it’s the writing that ultimately prevents it from spreading its wings, keeping it grounded and never giving it even the remotest of chances to take off. At least the romance is largely the main focus, which isn’t the case with a lot of holiday movies we’ve seen recently, so if you’re part of the old-fashioned crowd who just wants to see two people fall in love, this would be a good option for you. If, however, you actually want to enjoy the time you spend watching two people fall in love, look somewhere else, in a land far, far away.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Kaitlyn Leeb just might be the most attractive Lifetime/Hallmark actress in existence; she also might be the most talented.
• She goes from being inconsolably angry to forgivable pretty quick.
• Why does the "sudden fiancé" have to be a plot point at all and, in this case, why is she so unattractive?
• This one gives us not only one example of the “pretend to hate this man but secretly am attracted to him” trope, but two! (Bella also does the same with Jeff).
• One formula that doesn’t typically work for movies in general, but especially not holiday ones: Having an entire cast of unlikable characters (outside of the two leads).

RATING: 4/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Hometown Holiday (2018)

Director: Justin G. Dyck
Writer: Amanda McNeice, based on the novel by Caro Carson
Starring: Sarah Troyer, Bradley Hamilton, Kevin McGarry, and Samantha Gracie

It happens every year: I forget a movie almost immediately after watching it. Most of the time, it’s because it’s instantly forgettable; sometimes, it’s just because I’m either tired, or have a lot on my mind. Hometown Holiday is such a movie, and it’s because it’s instantly forgettable.

The set-up of the movie is pretty weird, as it features a well-known country singer character, who is not the main love interest. Instead, it’s the agent trying to sign him to a lucrative deal (for both parties), who has traveled all the way from L.A. to a remote village in the hopes of getting him to sign his life away. That, along with the female side of the equation—one of two sisters who slowly falls head over heels with the talent agent, instead of the sister who knew the country singer back in high school—makes for a rather bizarre story.

At any rate, the first half of this schmaltzy crapfest is actually okay, with the unique story angle a nice change of pace. I actually felt like it was somewhat unpredictable—like we were watching the side stories of the characters in the millions of other “Country Christmas” movies where the “small town” country star is the one who falls for some beautiful woman that he used to know way back in the day, but whom he fell out of touch with (usually for a reason that’s his fault), and whom he must win back by writing an emotional song for, which he then performs in front of a large group of people to confess his love for said woman. Refreshingly, all that is kept to a minimum.

Unfortunately, the second half is just a rage-inducing mess that really is just frustrating beyond all measure. It’s like the characters are slipped a “retard” pill and completely act out of character just to fancy the whims of the poorly-written script. Because, of course, there has to be some drama, and this one has two instances of rather far-reaching drama: she gets upset because she finds out that he lied to her about being a rancher (no one knows he’s an agent from L.A. at first). But then—later on—we discover she wants to return to musical theater, a fact she keeps from him…that makes it seem like she’s just every other fame-hungry whore he’s ever dated. Come on peeps! Some communication would go a long way to eliminating these bad mix-ups!

And don’t even get me on the painful side story involving the agent and his girlfriend (who midway through becomes “ex” girlfriend), a fame-obsessed woman who constantly berates him for not sending in headshots like he promised, and leaves him for an older Asian man just because he will. Her scenes, I think, are meant to be over-the-top in a comedic way, but they’re actually “over-the-top” in a “I want to jump into the TV set and punch her in the face before jumping back out, breaking my TV with a hammer, and then throwing it out of a third story window” kind of way. I mean, it’s not like this movie really builds up much momentum to ruin it, but these scenes certainly deflate what little it does manage to save.

In one bright spot, thankfully, the main cast is good: Sarah Troyer (as Krista) has a natural beauty that creeps up on you—either that, or maybe the makeup artists did a better job understanding her face as the movie went on. Either way, I have to shallowly admit I was very disappointed in her casting choice in the beginning (“Ugh, couldn’t they have gotten someone hot if I have to stare at them for 90 minutes?!”) but by the end, she completely won me over in the looks department (her "too angelic for words" character, on the other hand, is another story altogether). Bradley Hamilton, as agent Ryan Rourke, meanwhile, has an understated “coolness” that works well for the part. He reminds me of a younger Josh Hartnett; not in looks, but in the cool, nonchalant way he delivers his lines. I suppose many may find his performance a little too one-note, or “bored”; I thought it was a unique interpretation of a popular L.A. agent, without resorting to the over-the-top antics that most of the characters in these movies would force on you (“Look at me, I’m popular and a douchebag and wearing sunglasses, and that’s how you know I’m supposed to be from L.A.!”)

Unfortunately, while separately they deliver solid performances, there really isn’t much chemistry between them; I think I’d believe them more as brother and sister than as two lovers meant to be together.

In the end, despite the star's best efforts, this one’s ultimately another dud; I don’t think it’s on par with some of the worst holiday shtick we’ve ever seen, but it’s got more in common with those than anything that I’d consider “good”.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Wait, didn't Krista inherit a family farm? How does she have time for, like, three different jobs and 10 different hobbies?
• In one scene so confusing that it almost comes off as brilliant, Ryan calls Krista after a disagreement, and then 30 seconds later claims he’s busy and that he has to go, as if she interrupted him.
•  The side story involving his headshot-obsessed girlfriend is as cringeworthy as they come.
•  So Krista was so popular in New York that fame “swallowed her up”, yet no one knows who she is, she doesn't feel the need to mention it until way later on, and she's so nervous in the teeny town of Buttfuck, New Jersey (or wherever this thing takes place) that she initially fails miserably?
• Note during the “party” scene, where the country star takes a kid’s drink away from him in order to put him to bed, and places it right next to four pre-filled cups of fruit punch that are untouched and available for people to take.
• Speaking of rage-inducing: That’s so fucking hilarious that the pregnant woman has such bad food cravings that she gets sidetracked in mid-thought; the "pussywhipped husband who supports his pregnant wife for fear of her sudden emotional outbursts" is also carried to vomit-inducing extremes here. 
• Have the writers ever actually seen a countryside, or met someone who owned a horse, in person before?
• Kids in these movies are almost always annoying. The one here is a little less so than most, but they're always the worst actors and usually impossibly ugly, yet people pretend like they're just the greatest little shits ever.

OVERALL RATING: 4.5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Midnight at the Magnolia (2018)

Director: Max McGuire
Writers: Carley Smale
Starring: Natalie Hall, Evan Williams, Alison Brooks, and Steve Cumyn 

Midnight at the Magnolia is one of many variations on the standard “two people must pretend they’re together to accomplish something and then actually fall in love” theme that’s so prevalent during the holidays. Why are so many lame plotlines recycled over and over again almost verbatim? I get that studios want to churn them out as quickly as possible, but don’t these people get bored writing and directing and starring in the same movie over and over and over again? (Then again, I guess it’s all based on what audiences want, and apparently they never get sick of watching the same things over and over and over again.)

In this variation, Maggie and Jack are two radio DJ’s—and lifelong friends—who give dating advice on a wildly popular local radio show; so popular, in fact, that a satellite radio company is planning to pick them up and run them in syndication!

Long story short, the head of the satellite radio station wants to air a special show in which Maggie and Jack introduce their significant others to their parents (who both have also been lifelong friends and run a bar together called “Magnolia”), thinking that the potential drama could pull in massive ratings. But things quickly go south when both of their beau’s, a little put-off by being discussed so openly on radio, decide to call things off, leaving Maggie and Jack without anyone to introduce their parents to.

They initially suggest hiring actors, but figure that would get too messy. You know what won’t get too messy, though? Breaking the hearts of everyone around you, including your own parents (and even a dead mother!), when they find out that the only thing they’ve ever wanted turns out to be a fake event simply to boost ratings! Yeah, no way that could get out of hand, so let’s definitely pass on the more sustainable “paid actor” plan…

This is one of those movies that pushed and pulled me constantly in both directions, mainly because it’s just so stupid. Normally with these movies, I feel like that’s just par for the course and everyone gets what they deserve. But in this case, I actually kind of feel bad saying that, because the leads are adorable, especially Natalie Hall as Maggie (who has apparently already been pigeonholed as a romantic lead in cheesy holiday movies, and will thus never have a successful career outside of them). The two leads have good chemistry together, and actually feel like they’ve known each other for a long time.

Which also leads to the crux of my problems: for being so in tune with one another, they’re both apparently pretty stupid when it comes to picking up on signals. [Minor spoilers ahead] For example, one thing that haunts Maggie even to the present day was when Jack decided to take another girl to high school prom at the last second all those years ago. Why couldn’t she just tell him if they’re so comfortable with one another, and spend virtually every waking moment together? Or, even better yet, wouldn’t it be pretty obvious to even a complete idiot? [end minor spoilers]

Although working against that theory is Jack: like the movie’s script, he’s exceedingly dumb. This is a guy who needs everything spelled out for him in order to understand things—and even then he’s prone to obliviously missing the point. [More minor spoilers] Take, for instance, the aforementioned sequence where he dumped Maggie for another girl. His own parents told him how obvious it was that she was into him, and he never acted on it or took it seriously. Or the scene later when he stumbles on the girl he dumped Maggie for back in high school, and takes her up on an offer to have drinks together. Thankfully, she doesn't try to steal Jake away (surprisingly), but in fact, she's the one that has to explain to him just how heartbroken Maggie was, and how much she means to her. I mean, this girl knew that over a decade ago, but this moron couldn't figure it out for himself? [end more minor spoilers]

At any rate, the entire cast of characters are likeable, and they help to keep things tolerable at its worst, and entertaining at its peak. It's not a particularly good holiday movie, but if you just want an attractive cast and some background noise, this should set the appropriate mood.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Are the leftovers that Maggie offers Jack from the fridge early on really just lettuce and mashed potatoes, like it appears?
• Something I just realized: Do we ever even see Jack's girlfriend? We see her boyfriend/ex, but I don't think we ever even see the woman he was dating. (I could be wrong because it's been about 6 days since I've seen it, which is the equivalent of six years in normal movie years.)
• There really is some cute chemistry between the two leads; it's actually pretty believable they grew up together, for the most part.

OVERALL RATING: 5/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas Survival (aka Surviving Christmas With the Relatives) (2018)

Director: James Dearden
Writer: Dearden

Starring: Julian Ovenden, Gemma Whelan, Joely Richardson, and Michael Landes

Are we in a better mood than most holiday seasons, or are we just mentally imbalanced? This is the second movie that we’ve seen this holiday season that has gotten picked apart by critics (and, in most cases, audiences) that we have enjoyed.

The basic set-up of the plot, admittedly, is rather lazy: Rich relatives from America come to visit English relatives in a run-down cottage in the British countryside. Thankfully, though, the humor is (usually) much more than just watching rich characters complain about stepping in cow manure, or seeing live chickens running around (although there is plenty of that, too).

I will say that it does bite off a little bit more than it can chew: It feels as if writer/director James Dearden pictured a whole TV series based around it, and set out to fill the story with as many different intricacies as possible. That’s probably the movie’s weakest characteristic: for taking place on Christmas (and Boxing Day), there’s very little actual Christmas in it. Instead, it’s more the study of a dysfunctional family trying to keep things together, that just so happens to be based around Christmastime. And by having so many different characters involved in the plot, there are such large gaps between seeing some of them that we forget they're even a part of the movie.

The cast pulls things off marvelously, and once again, they’re the biggest reason we liked this movie as much as we did. Michael Landes is perfect as Trent, the rich douchebag who’s looking to sleep with anything he can—even if it’s not his wife; Joely Richardson is great as Lyla, Miranda’s sister, and a successful actress who may not be as successful—or as happy—as we originally think; and Gemma Whelan is great as Miranda, Lyla’s sister, and the beneficiary of the country house via her father’s will.

Maybe we’re just desensitized to cheesy holiday romance movies, and the sudden switch to a more straightforward comedy was a welcome change from the norm; whatever the reason, we enjoyed our time trying to survive this Christmas. There’s nothing new or unique—even a lot of the jokes are predictable—but but it’s all done pretty well, and sold by a cast that is uniformly above average.

With a little bit of trimmings (on the cutting room floor, not on the dinner table), this could have been a much more focused, much more enjoyable movie.

OVERALL RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Holly Star (2018)

Director: Michael A. Nickles    
Writer: Nickles
Starring: Katlyn Carlson, Brian Muller, Teya Patt, and Pamela Chabora

It’s only the second movie we’ve watched this holiday season, but it’s hard to imagine anything that follows topping Holly Star—this might just be the quintessential cheesy holiday movie; a near-perfect romp through formulaic territory that’s genuinely funny, legitimately charming, and that somehow feels fresh.

The plot is mostly typical: Sloan is a puppeteer (?) who is fired from her job; without a place to stay, she travels to her parents’ home—only to discover they’re out of town on a trip. No worries, though, because her old stomping grounds feature a large cast of characters that she grew up with, like best friend (and paintball aficionado) Kay K; her “young at heart and mind and body” grandmother, who lives in a senior care facility that she also apparently runs; and Andy, her childhood friend who returns home once a year to help his parent’s run a Christmas tree farm. Honestly, it’s my nightmare collection of characters (there aren’t many things I hate more in movies than the grandma character with boundless energy who acts like a young person for comedic effect; that’s up there with “fat person dancing” as the cheapest, laziest, and unfunniest of all clichés), but somehow they never become annoying; I think it also helps that—with the exception of Teya Patt’s Kay K—the overacting is kept to a bare minimum, which at least helps to ground it more in “reality”.

But there’s also another piece to Sloan’s puzzle: Every time she gets close to death (and it oddly happens more than once), she has flashbacks to her childhood, when she witnessed Santa Claus burying a bag full of money. She becomes virtually obsessed with finding the location of that bag, even going so far as to planning out her own near-death experience (with the help of Kay K), in an effort to stir up further memories. But is it the treasure that she’s really after? Or is Santa leading her to something that’s worth far more than money?

We all know how it’s going to end up: the refreshing part is how it goes about getting there. The story weaves its way through drunken Santa pub crawls, nursing home tango nights, and dickish impound lot managers, but never once loses its footing. It approaches—and perhaps even surpasses—“over-the-top” territory, but it never feels forced; it never feels like the material is getting out of control, the way it often does with these kind of movies, which seem to be quickly-produced in an effort to maximize earning potential.

The disparate, mismatched plot elements sound like they would be a certifiable mess (and they technically should be), but somehow, like most everything else, it just works: this is one of those ultra-rare holiday movies that isn’t just enjoyable for “what it is”; it’s enjoyable, period. The casting is spot-on, the writing is almost pitch-perfect, and the use of puppets (courtesy of Figures of Speech) is an inspiring, artsy gamble that will no doubt turn off as many as it impresses. Maybe most importantly: it’s actually funny, and with a unanimously likable cast.

It also doesn’t hurt that Katlyn Carlson’s Sloan is absolutely adorable. It can’t be easy hiring the leads for a holiday romance, because I’m finding in order for them to “work” the best, they have to be attractive, but not overly so; they must also balance the looks with a certain level of “girl (or boy) next door” innocence. Again, it can’t be too much (I loathe the movies where the filmmakers go out of their way to make the main character too perfect, and too oblivious to everything), which is why it’s actually tougher than it would seem, and why a large portion of these movies disappoint upon execution. There needs to be something good to look at, almost as a distraction while you swallow the same plot lines and one-dimensional characters for the millionth time.

Sloan strikes that perfect balance: she’s attractive by looks alone, but not in a way that I would consider “conventional”: she’s not a supermodel, but nor is she “plain”. She has a look that’s all…her. Factor in her laid-back attitude, and she becomes a woman that even I would marry; that certainly makes it a lot easier to root for characters when you actually feel some kind of connection.

If I had to pick the “weakest link” of the story, I would say this probably isn’t one that will cater to true fans of Christmas romances; there are so many plot devices that the romantic element feels like a recurring theme, moreso than the focus. There aren’t really true “sparks” between the characters, either, because they are given shockingly little screentime together; there were more than a couple parts where I legitimately forgot I was watching a romance, simply because that part of the story frequently seems to be on the backburner. That being said, though, the romantic elements don’t feel “forced”, and the two leads are cute together—while there might not be mind-blowing chemistry, their personalities fit well, and they seem like they would be a good match.

I guess that’s why this movie worked for me: I’m certainly not the main demographic for these movies, because I often find the romance parts to be the least compelling. Holly Star has enough plot for two or three typical romance movies, and because of that, the “love” story seems to be put on the backburner more often than not. I’d assume this viewpoint was just limited to me if my wife—who legitimately does find excitement in the “romantic” aspects of these movies—loved it just as much as I did.

So why the lower-than-average rating on IMDb? I’m not quite sure, but it leads me to believe you have to have an open-mind, and a tolerance for a movie that’s willing to mess around with the straightforward linear formula expected of these movies. It doesn’t tweak it much, but enough that it might turn off diehard fans of the gag-inducing straightforwardness of the romance movies of old. And in its wake, it leaves a refreshing holiday romance that might be light on “romance”, but that makes up for it with loads of charm, humor, and puppets.

Who knew that combination could ever combine to form the best cheesy holiday romance movie we’ve ever seen?

RATING: 9/10

TRAILER

SIDE NOTE: The film's director breaks down the shooting of this movie, which was - like many other holiday productions - shot on a low budget. This article from Moviemaker.com is a fascinating read for those interested on topics from the other side of the camera; he also doesn't come off as an irritating douchebag like I thought he might.

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas Catch (2018)

Director: Justin G. Dyck
Writer: Patrick McBrearty
Starring: Emily Alatalo, Andrew Bushell, Franco Lo Presti, and Genelle Williams

It’s the holiday season, which means it’s about time to decorate the tree, listen to festive music, drink hot chocolate, and of course, cuddle up in front of the television to watch some horrible Christmas movies! Which one would get the honors of kicking off the 2020 season for us? It was a rather lengthy process, but we decided to skip the more popular recent releases to find one that sounded so absolutely awful that it had a greater chance of dampening our Christmas spirit, rather than heightening it.

And that one we settled on was Christmas Catch, about a rather inept female police detective nicknamed Mack (short for McKenzie), who is literally ordered by the FBI to date a man suspected of stealing a valuable jewel (when was this story written, the 1920’s?) Considering she’s desperate for Mr. Right (we’re talking “desperate” to a level almost unmatched by any other Christmas movie character in history), she revels at the chance—but then starts to question her motives when she genuinely falls for him. Much of the common holiday romance hijinx ensue in a story that should be mostly familiar to anyone who’s ever seen one.

But Christmas Catch does have a couple tricks up its yuletide sleeve, including a twist that I admit caught me totally off guard, and that briefly takes the material into Lifetime mystery territory. It’s also notable for allowing two main characters of the opposite sex to just be friends: in this case it’s Mack and her partner Reid, an attractive, straight male whom she is forced to live with while they stake out the suspected diamond bandit. Not once are there ever romantic overtures from either, which is both unexpected and refreshing.

The performances are pretty good overall: Emily Alatalo has acting chops to match her looks, and dominates the picture as Mack, the bumbling detective-turned-dater. While much of her performance is standard fare, she does have a couple of emotional breakdowns toward the end that are startlingly  realistic; so much so that they almost feel out of place in an otherwise silly, lighthearted romp. Yanic Truesdale, who many may remember as Michel Gerard, the hotel owner from a little show called “Gilmore Girls”, also deserves some praise, delivering a noteworthy performance within a limited amount of screentime.

It’s not all snowshowers and rainbows, though: Captain Bennett, who is Mack’s boss, also happens to be her mother. She is one of those insufferable mother characters so pervasive in these movies; so nosey in her daughter’s life that it becomes creepy. The movie also milks jokes about Mack’s hapless dating life well beyond the point of normalcy; it doesn’t ever come off as cruel (mainly because she’s a good sport about the ribbing), but it’s a pretty redundant topic for the first half-hour that thankfully dies down once the story gets rolling. And Genelle Williams (as FBI Special Agent Robertson) is completely miscast, failing to deliver the grit and confidence that her character requires.

However, Christmas Catch actually defies those odds to become an above-average example of the genre: it’s charming enough to overcome most of its faults, tweaks the predictability formula enough to include some genuine surprises, and actually features some genuinely funny moments. It takes longer to get going than it should, but once it does, it’s a solid example of the "holiday cheese" subgenre.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

SIDE NOTE OF PERTINENT INTEREST TO ME: The director of this, who's filmography reads like he's the son of the president of Hallmark, has completely broken mold, crafting a horror movie titled Anything for Jackson, about a Satanist couple who try to bring back their dead son...with horrifying consequences. Just tossing that out there, in case there are fellow lovers (or avid haters) of cheesy romance movies that also happen to love the horror genre.

REPETITIVE ROMANCE: Runaway Romance (2018)

Director: Brian Herzlinger
Writer(s): Emily Golden and John-Eliot Jordan, from the novel by Miralee Ferrell
Starring: Danielle C. Ryan, Trevor Donovan, Galadriel Stineman, and Tatum O'Neal

I feel like I’m starting to become a lame holiday movie, because reviewing them has made me feel like the repetitive robot all of them aspire to be: I find myself using the same words and phrases, trying to convey just how bland and repetitive they all seem to be.

For example, I could open every single plot synopsis with “Stop me if you’ve heard this one before,” because they all follow the same ten or so basic plot outlines, with just enough minor variations to slightly distance themselves from one another. And Runaway Romance is certainly not one to buck that trend. In it, Danielle Ryan plays Ann Stanway, a popular reality star on the popular reality show, “Life With the Adsons”, where she plays the girlfriend opposite Beau Davidson’s Scott Adson, while wearing a godawful wig.

Behind the scenes is Veronica Adson (Tatum O’Neal), Scott’s domineering mother who also controls the show, under the guise of wanting to do “what’s best” for her son—assuming it improves ratings, that is. So when numbers are staying stagnant with Ann, Veronica feels it’s time to replace her with another up-and-coming star, a notion that doesn’t seem to bother Scott one bit. (At least until the idea fails, but we all knew that was coming.)

In response to this, Ann flees L.A., winding up in Cave City, KY after her car breaks down, which is much closer to her hometown of Pennsylvania than the spotlights of LA. She bumps into an inn owned by Sarah Miller, a young Amish woman who annoyingly never uses contractions, and whose sentences seem to take a full decade to fully spit out (do the Amish really speak like that these days?) Annoying traits aside, she is kindhearted, allowing Ann to stay there until she can get her situation worked out, which of course, she can’t reveal to anyone because she has to hide her true self. (Thankfully, though, she loses the wig, which makes her look much more natural.)

The first character she meets is Jimmy, an awkward little man who is clearly interested in Ann from the outset, although Ann seems (rightfully) apprehensive. Just when I thought this might be a chore to wade through, I learn this is about the closest thing to a red herring you’ll ever find in a Hallmark-ish movie: he’s not the love interest after all! Instead, that honor goes to Hunter, an architect who checks all the boxes of a male lead: single, attractive, and successful. And who wouldn’t want a piece of that? As it turns out, even reality stars can be wooed by normal peasants!

Ann and Hunter’s blossoming relationship takes a hit, though, when that little weasel Jimmy—who himself dreams of being a reality star—takes her rejection a little too personal, and rats out her location to the press! Oh Jimmy, that’s not the way to a girl’s heart! Mild, family-oriented hijinx ensue.

This movie is actually one of the better non-funny holiday movies that we’ve seen up to this point, thanks to a good cast, who all band together to help detract from an idea we’ve all seen a thousand different times. Beau Davidson is perfectly douchey as Scott, while Tatum O’Neal’s Veronica is slimy as his domineering mother. The main stars are likable enough to cheer for, and the remaining cast manages to be competent, which can’t always be said for these clichéd love tales.

Ken Strunk, though, deserves special mention in a thankless role as Abraham Troyer, the old bishop, or whatever the hell Amish “masters” are known as; he rides around on his horse, chastising Sarah for wasting her time and energy running a failing inn when she should be married and settled down, and threatening to close the joint down after she takes in the non-Amish Ann. Although he could be seen as a villain, Strunk injects just enough humanity into his caricature that he merely seems like what he is: an old man steadfast and unwavering in his beliefs, rather than a one-note character who’s merely out to create obstacles for the main stars to overcome. (There’s a scene later on where the media, tipped off by Jimmy (which I guess could count as a spoiler, but you should already know that was going to happen), descends upon the small Amish town. Abraham’s reaction—one of complete devastation and disbelief—is so genuine that you actually feel bad for him, despite the culture-based “crudeness” of his character.)

Even though this was better than some, it’s still little more than a by-the-numbers romp through formulaic territory that certainly won’t port any new fans over to these saccharine gag-fests. There are much better out there no matter your thoughts, but you can do worse if this is what you (or, more likely, your significant other) decides to force down your throat.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

Braid (2018)

Director: Mitzi Peirone
Writer(s): Peirone
Starring: Madeline Brewer, Imogen Waterhouse, Sarah Hay, and Scott Cohen

Braid has a good cast, excellent production design, and gorgeous photography: all it’s missing is an idea. It feels like a random collection of images and partially-realized sequences, held together by an ambiguous, threadbare plot, and an ending that never actually seems to arrive. I don’t like to throw the term “pretentious” around very often, and while I think I would stop short of actually putting that label on this one (I think it's at least trying to be genuine, rather than being artsy for artsy's sake), I have to admit it’s a word that popped in my head more than once.

Two girls--who are on the run from the police after a drug bust destroys their only source of income—decide to revisit their psychotic friend with whom they have fallen out of touch. The reason? Somewhere within her oversized mansion is a safe, and inside that safe is a lot of money. Enough, they figure, to pay back all the money they owe for their confiscated stash, while also leaving some to live off of, at least for a while.

But Daphne isn’t a typical friend: she’s a full-on psycho. And in order to get the money, they must enter the imaginative world the three of them created when they were younger. This world has three rules, which we are repeatedly beaten over the head with, lest we forget: Rule #1: everyone must play; rule #2: no outsiders; and #3: no one leaves.

Well, that doesn’t sound like a very fun game, and it only takes us about ten minutes before we first realize that this was probably the least practical way they could have accessed the cash. I mean, robbing a bank would probably be a more simple approach than having to deal with Daphne, who clearly gets macabre joy out of watching others suffer, and who pretends to be the mother she could never be, what with her barren womb and all. And while the final “twist” seems to excuse many of the film’s narrative weaknesses, it doesn’t change anything at all about how boring it is to slog through.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a critical darling, because it’s exactly the type of movie to appeal to that crowd: a story with great visuals, and an ambiguous story that they can discuss at length over rounds of craft beers and overpriced wines. The kind of movie that they all pretend to “get”, so they can continue to appear “hip” and “trindie” (a mix of “indie” and “trendy”) to their fellow peers. Yet what's on screen seems like the end result of a group of friends shooting random footage in a cool location they secured for a day, then attempting to piece together a sensical narrative based around those random sequences at a later time. It’s rarely gripping, and even by the time we get to the obligatory bloodshed—which just feels like it was thrown in to “wake-up” its dozing audience—it’s long past the point of redemption.

I’m completely shocked writer-director Mitzi Peirone hasn’t worked on music videos (at least, per her IMDb page), because there are many sequences that recall the type of quick-cut editing and visual flourishes from that type of media. I think she would flourish in a medium like that, where stories have to be summed up in around five minutes, and she can run wild with the visuals. Indeed, she has an eye for composition and production design because—no matter what you personally think of them—you can't deny she produces some striking imagery.

However, she seems to think that all you need to create a dreamlike atmosphere are bright colors and altered audio effects. Actually, in some ways, creating an “accurate” dreamland is even more difficult than creating a linear reality, in that the random sequences have to feel like they make sense together, even if they don’t (to the viewer). Take the works of David Lynch as one example: A film like Mulholland Drive works because, even through its fractured, confusing storyline (that may or may not even exist), there are enough “callbacks” and similarities between scenes that not only do you get to know the main characters (or at least think you do), but you can tell they are a part of the same cinematic universe.

That's not so here, and it's also the main reason why Braid's 85 minute runtime somehow manages to not only feel stretched by at least twenty minutes, but also longer than some that run two hours. 

RATING: 4/10

TRAILER

LAUGHABLE LIFETIME: Mommy Group Murder (2018)

Director: Nick Everhart
Writer(s): Everhart, from a story by Samantha Shear, Michael Shear, and Dave Hickey
Starring: Helena Mattsson, Leah Pipes, Nichole Galicia, and Ryan Carnes

Wow…in ten years, will we look back on 2019 as the “breakout” year for Lifetime movies? Sure, they’ve been around for a couple of decades now, and been “popular” for much of that time, but I would imagine (and hope) that most of their appeal has been from people who love to laugh at the straight-faced absurdity of their increasingly-bizarre plots, and idiotic titles (exhibit A: this one).

Lately, though, there seems to be a rather alarming trend threatening to muck all of that up: actual talent has been seeping in to more and more of these projects. I don’t know, maybe it’s just me and we’ve been blessed with enough good luck to pick all of the good ones out of 2019’s releases. But when even a movie called Mommy Group Murder can actually be pretty good, I would say there’s a good chance the talent is rolling through all of them.

Leah Pipes (a career in porn is never too far away with a name like that) plays Natalie, a woman who suffers from postpartum depression after giving birth to her baby. Her hunky husband, Ryan, seems to be too busy with his new career to handle a crying child, and so she is left to her own devices, struggling to maintain the façade of happiness while balancing the needs of her child, and mounting feelings of loneliness.

All that changes when, through a rather horrifying (read: actually hilarious) accident involving a runaway stroller headed for a body of water, she meets Grace, a blonde woman who eventually invites her to join her “mommy group”, which is just her and two other mothers, in various stages of unhappiness, who lean on each other for support. There’s Roz, the token black woman whose husband is curiously never seen, and Maria, a nurse who suspects her husband, Tony, is cheating on her.

Despite following the Lifetime formula for the most part, this one actually seems to have enough self-awareness to throw in some red herrings: by the midway point, we really had no idea where it was headed. Sure, in hindsight it’s still the same ol’ linear Lifetime murder mystery, but there are enough twists and turns and unexpected surprises that it’s worth a watch…for about three-quarters of it, anyway.

Unfortunately, once the typically overprotective Natalie gets so obsessed with finding answers that she leaves her baby at home—with the back door left ajar (because apparently she doesn’t have an extra set of keys and can’t wait for her husband to get home)—that’s when it reverts back to the expected collection of groan-inducing clichés. It really feels like the final twenty minutes were written and filmed by someone else entirely; gone is the enticing unpredictability, in favor of a by-the-numbers psycho-stalker finish that, by the time you get there, delivers exactly what you know it’s going to, and nothing else. It’s a shame it has to end on its weakest note, especially considering it had quite a bit going for it before it hit the wall.

In what seems to be the new par for the course, the cast is uniformly strong, but special kudos must be granted to Leah Pipes, who carries much of the early picture on her shoulders. Considering the whole first ten or so minutes consists of her going through her daily routine, looking sad and crying a bunch, it could have easily been a laughingstock from the start, but she gives it her all, lending some surprising credence to her character. (The intense cheesiness of the slow-motion “runaway stroller” scene notwithstanding, but that’s not entirely on her.)  Ditto for Kate Mansi as Megan, who has a couple scenes requiring her to break down, and does so believably.

While the guys don’t have the same level of acting chops, nor the same level of emotional requirements, they manage to be an attractive bunch, giving those Lifetime-obsessed women something to marvel at as the story develops. As is usually the case, it’s the uniformly solid cast that carries the story from point A to point B and, for the most part, prevents it from devolving into (easy) self-parody.

Again, if it weren’t for a below mediocre ending, this would have been a solid contender as one of the best Lifetime movies we’ve seen; as it stands, it will just have to settle as an above-average entry that is worth a watch if you’re bored.

RATING: 6/10

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• We saw this about two weeks ago, and I didn't take my usual set of notes; it's amazing just how little I remember of this entire experience.
• The runaway stroller scene has to be seen to be believed--it's peak Lifetime.
• When viewed in hindsight, the story is too obvious, but credit to the cast and crew for doing their best to sell it.
• The titular murder scene is surprisingly bloody for this kind of fare.
• The marketing for these movies is very inconsistent: some seem to get full-length trailers and talk show appearances, while others (like this one) are confined to :30 trailers on Lifetime's Facebook page.

TRAILER

This is the only one I could find.

CHRISTMAS CAPSULES: Christmas Cupid's Arrow (aka The Christmas Cupid) (2018)

Director: Michael D. Sellers
Writer(s): Brian Marchetti, Jack Marchetti, and Jamie R. Thompson
Starring: Elisabeth Harnois, Jonathan Togo, Chad Michael Collins, and Sasha Jackson

Well shit, isn't that a goddamned stupid title? What the hell does it even mean? Now that I've sat down and watched the entire movie, I can tell you that...I still have no idea. Especially considering the alternate title is the much more sensical A Christmas Cupid—why not just stick to that one?

Anyway, assuming you can get past the horrible first ten minutes, and then get past the horribly half-baked plot, this one is actually fairly enjoyable. Resident Christmas movie actress, and former child star Elisabeth Harnois is once again the lead here, playing a college professor named Holly (how original!) who is looking for love. So, of course, her friend signs her up for an online dating service, where she meets a good-looking man who also happens to be a complete moron. Lacking the words necessary to appeal to the scholarly woman (and also ignoring the fact that, even aside from that, they have no chemistry together whatsoever), he enlists the help of his ol' college buddy David—who's a writer with a dead wife and young child—to help him find the words that will help him get in her pants.

But the “twist” here is that David is falling for Holly himself, being paired up with her to help design the company's winter formal dance...and he has no idea that Holly is the woman he's writing love poems to on behalf of his douchy friend! Wow these plots just keep getting worse and worse...

Anyway, this one is a "winner" (in the loosest sense of the term) thanks to the cast, who are all uniformly solid in career-destroying roles. Sasha Jackson is adorably hilarious as Holly's right-hand woman, Emily, delivering perfectly-timed zingers and elevating her character to a level that few holiday supporting actresses can match. Seriously, she's damn near brilliant, and singlehandedly makes this movie way more enjoyable than it should be in every scene she's in.

Jonathan Togo is likable as “the man behind the words”...although he does sometimes go a little bit overboard in later scenes, delivering his lines with an intensity more fit for a real movie, rather than one of these half-baked holiday turds. Ms. Harnois, being a seasoned vet, seems to have this whole Christmas movie acting thing down pat, and proves to be a reliable leading lady.

As the saying goes, you can't polish a turd, and Christmas Cupid's Arrow is still one of those thanks to its ignorant title, and equally stupid plot, that would have been an utter disaster with a different cast. But these are people you wouldn't mind spending a little bit of time with—and 90 minutes is the perfect length to ensure that, unlike your family, they don't stick around and completely overstay their welcome.

STRAY OBSERVATION 

• I must say this has one of the more believable “this guy that I think is great is actually a complete douchebag and I should probably break up with him” reveals of any generic holiday movie I've ever seen.

RATING: 5.5/10

TRAILER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRAY OBSERVATIONS 

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

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

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

RATING: 1/10.

TRAILER (SPOILER ALERT!)