Merry Kiss Cam (2022)

Director: Lisa France
Writer(s): Maya Boudreau and Evan D. Watkins
Starring: Jesse Bradford, Katie Lowes, Nathaniel Fuller, and Benny Elledge

I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to notice these sappy chronicles follow a rather distinct formula: Two people meet; usually hate each other in the beginning; are forced to spend time together; fight over something that displays a clear lack of communication; then discover they are actually meant to be together. There are slight variations, of course, but virtually every one of them contain at least four of the five elements listed above.

Finding ways to subvert the genre’s expectations while adhering to the above “checklist” can be a daunting task. But there are ways that it can be tinkered with so that it feels different. Those are the ones we generally hold in high regard. And Merry Kiss Cam comes awfully close to reaching the lofty heights of very few hol-coms before it.

To be clear, the base idea is even stupider than most: Bartender Danny and widowed artist Jess go on a first date to a college hockey game. Danny is a huge fan of the Minnesota-Duluth Bulldogs; unfortunately, they’re in the midst of a huge losing streak that’s threatening to put them out of playoff contention. The duo are mortified when they end up on the “kiss cam”, a live segment on sports arena Jumbotrons everywhere that urge the pictured duo to kiss. After some urging from fellow fans, they lock lips…and then a miraculous thing happens. The Bulldogs score immediately thereafter, securing a much-needed victory!

Due to the close proximity between said smooch and the game-winning goal, the fans believe they are the team’s good luck charm. This superstition seems to carry some weight after they continue to kiss during every game…and the team continues to win.

But as we all know things can’t just go that smoothly. Behind the scenes, there’s a lot of extra baggage between them. Well, mainly because of Jess, who refuses to tell Danny about her dead ex-husband, something Danny somehow finds out on his own. Figuring she isn’t ready to talk about it, he politely keeps this information secret, which is clearly the right thing to do in this situation. Or so one would think. Her career as an artist is also beginning to take off, adding to her stress - and obstacles that threaten her relationship with Danny - as she tries to meet important deadlines.

I don’t want to spoil too much, but the obligatory “fight” is frustrating; it’s about the only thing that bogs an otherwise wonderful movie down. I have mentioned this many times before, but why do these features always feel the need to drive a (temporary) chasm between the two protagonists, anyway? I know, I know, it’s part of the “hol-com checklist”, but it’s an aspect that feels outdated. I guess maybe it’s to show that their relationships can withstand the challenges of daily life, but in many movies, they just feel forced. That’s the situation here, where a small misunderstanding is blown way out of proportion.

One unfortunate aspect of critiquing holiday romantic comedies - hell, rom-coms in general - is that, in order to do a thorough job, one must be shallow. I mean, isn’t it a huge selling point that the two leads are attractive? I’ve said this before, but the perfect casting features young-ish characters - generally in their late twenties or early thirties - who are cute, but not overly hot. It’s not just me, though: Clearly casting departments put this criteria over everything else. Disagree with me? Then why are there so many holiday movies without an ounce of chemistry between the two main characters? You know, the ones that we’re supposed to be cheering on to find true love?

Refreshingly, Merry Kiss Cam bucks that trend, proving just how shallow we all are in the process. Katie Lowes, who you might know from her stint on the TV show “Scandal”, doesn’t have the typical looks of a romantic lead. That’s not to say she’s ugly, she just has a different look about her that’s well outside the norm. She has robust features that are atypical of the “young and skinny” requirements of most hol-coms. Again, that’s not to say she’s fat; anyone above a size 2 seems to be considered “too big” for most of these roles. (I feel like there’s no way to explain this without drawing the ire of fans, or being considered “sexist”, but let’s be real here: it’s a thing.)

Even Jesse Bradford, who you might recall as Kirsten Dunst’s younger brother in the cheerleading comedy Bring It On, has a look that I believe will have to grow on most viewers. He is given a slouchy, uncaring look that is “perfect” for the stereotypical bar owner, which movies typically seem to consider a “slum” job for slackers and ne’er-do-wells. This is a far cry from the clean-shaven good guy who tends to dominate these types of roles. Hell, it’s even more “extreme” than the typical “rugged outdoorsman” who are predominantly featured in the movies that feature country boys as the lead. It’s something that might take some getting used to for Christmas romance traditionalists.

And yet the movie manages to work, thanks in large part to their dynamic chemistry. No, I wouldn’t go so far as to say there’s a lot of sexual tension between them, but these types of movies don’t need that. The two leads genuinely give off the aura of a couple falling in innocent, PG-rated love. There feels like there’s a pull between them; like they’re fated to be together. The two actors seem very comfortable in each others’ presence, and their relationship flows naturally. That might sound like something that should be a given, but there are more than a fair share of rom-coms that make it hard to cheer for the two protagonists to find their “happily ever after” thanks to wooden acting or non-existent appeal.

But, just like the Bulldogs at the center of the movie, chances are you won’t find it hard to cheer for these two fated lovers to take their romance beyond the confines of a public video screen, and into the real world that exists outside of it.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• As a hockey fan - and former beer league goaltender - I must say a majority of the hockey scenes are rather below average. Why can’t movies that feature sports also focus on getting the “action” sequences right? The goalies move way too slow to “sell” most of the goals. That might sound nitpicky, but there’s enough hockey footage to be a strong supporting part of the story.
• Benny Elledge is perfect as Bulldogs’ super-fan Derrick Dubonnet, who sits behind Jess and Danny at the games. He’s great at being somewhat obnoxious (again, in a PG-rated way), yet likable at the same time.
• Another refreshing change of pace: They don’t wait until the end of the movie to kiss. Sure, it might not be romantic seeing them do it on a big screen surrounded by thousands of fans, but I like how they get it “out of the way” early. This allows the focus to be on their relationship, rather than their first kiss.

RATING: 6.5/10

TRAILER

Christmas Movie Magic (2021)

Director: Robert Vaughn
Writer(s): Rickie Castaneda, from a story by James S. Blakeman and Caitlin English
Starring: Holly Deveaux, Drew Seeley, Jill Frappier and Jennifer Gibson

The first holiday movie of the season more or less sets the tone for all the rest that follow. If we get a bad one, then it’s a case of “bah-humbug” and that negativity follows into the next viewing. And the next. Until one of them finally breaks the cycle by being “good”. Last year we saw an unprecedented number of above-average Christmas rom-coms.

This year hasn’t gotten off to such a good start.

Actually Christmas Movie Magic does get off to a decent start. A man encounters a woman walking her pig in the middle of the street. Through some cheeky dialogue, the two seem to hit it off instantly. But we can tell from the intentionally stilted acting (even for this type of movie) that it’s not from this time period. Alas, it is not: This love story is actually a movie from the 1950s.

I was hoping the entire movie would be done in this style. It probably would have gotten a little tiresome, but at least it would have been unique. Unfortunately, the “movie-within-a-movie” is only glimpsed occasionally after the intro, despite playing an annoyingly protracted part in the main movie itself.

Alli is an entertainment writer hoping to earn a promotion to the news team. Of course, she thinks her talents are being underutilized, and wants a chance to prove herself. Her boss offers her the chance to do just that - provided she write an article about Christmas With You, that ‘50s movie we caught a glimpse of earlier. Starring Walter Andrews - Hollywood’s heartthrob of the time - it seems the movie had such a profound impact on the city it was filmed in, that it continues even today.

That city is White Falls. And that movie seems to have had no greater impact on anyone, than a man named Brad Westdale who, of course, is Alli’s age. This man is a walking encyclopedia of the movie - in fact, it’s all he fucking talks about. It’s “Christmas With You” this, and “Christmas With You” that. Sure, his history has something to do with it - his grandpa and grandma’s movie theater was the site of the film’s premiere - but come on, Brad, it’s been 65 years. You weren’t around, and only heard the stories through a third party, even if that third party was your grandparents. Seriously, his fascination with it veers into pure obsession.

There is some boring “mystery” involving a famous song that Walter wrote for the movie, which was inspired by a secret lover he had on set. Alli and Brad’s drive to solve that mystery forms the binding agent that brings the two would-be lovers together. (Is it a spoiler alert to reveal that the two leads get together in the end?) It’s rather yawn-inducing.

Christmas Movie Magic does have one welcome change: Alli and Brad never “hate” each other. There always seems to be friction between the two leads in the beginning, which slowly becomes admiration. Here, Alli seems to be intrigued by Brad from the outset, as curious as it is. I would think most women would be put off by a man whose only knowledgeable topic is an old romance movie, but what do I know?

There are also some other strengths: Holly Deveaux is attractive - and adept - as the lead, which helps to give an air of believability to the budding romance. (Brad, on the other hand, comes off as doofy, but I think that has more to do with the script.) The flashbacks to the “classic” movie that forms the backdrop to the modern tale is also done with an impressive level of detail. Even the central song - though it’s not the least bit catchy - does sound like it was recorded in the ‘50s.

Maybe it got us in the wrong mood. After all, reviews of this are above-average across the board (including a positive write-up in the Wall Street Journal, of all places). But Brad’s relentless, grating obsession with a movie that premiered 65 years ago was enough to sink it for us. Add in the final musical number, which takes place in the present day and feels woefully out of place - and a complete lack of chemistry between the two leads - and you have the perfect recipe for holiday drowsiness.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• As out-of-left-field and laughable as its placement is, I must admit the final musical number is actually well-done, thanks to some competent choreography.

• How in the hell has no one seen Walter’s revelatory identity of his real-life love interest prior to this? It’s spelled out and written in huge fucking letters!

• This movie might have actually been helped out by some initial friction, as Alli’s skepticism is never enough to challenge Brad and his annoyingly saccharine vision of life.

• It took me a Herculean effort just to make it through without falling asleep.

• It's telling when the two leads can't muster up more than an unemotional peck for their first kiss.

RATING: 3/10

TRAILER

The Dating List (2019)

Director: David I. Strasser
Writer(s): Kelly Peters and Amy Katherine Taylor
Starring: Natalie Dreyfuss, Andrew Dunbar, Carmel Amit and Nathan Witte

Where do you even begin to describe a movie like The Dating List? It’s impossibly foolish, though I suppose that’s part of its charm; it’s completely implausible, though again, so are all of these wannabe rom-coms. I guess a better question would be, how do movies like this continue to be made? And then I realize that my wife and I are only adding to the problem, no matter which context we are watching it under. I mean, even if people are watching it to poke fun at the neverending silliness, it still counts as a view, right?

Abby is a young(ish) editor who is looking for both love (aren’t they all?) and a job. She has a chance at one of them when she arrives for an interview at Bell and Howe, one of the most popular publishing firms in the nation. Susan, the Senior Editor, informs Abby that she doesn’t have any openings available, but does offer her the chance to work on a weird side-job, with the promise that she will get a permanent editing position if she succeeds. 

Susan, you see, wants to get married (don’t they all?), but has a little problem: She’s too busy with her career to make time for dating. So she wants Abby to sift through 3,000 (?!) potential men, all of whom she apparently “connected” with on a dating app, in order to find the one(s) most suited to her. How will Abby know exactly what to look for on behalf of a woman she just met? Easy…Susan supplies her with a(n exhausting) list of things to look for in a potential mate.

And so Abby begins the process of pre-screening potential dates, first by whittling them down using pictures and social media, and then by actually meeting the more promising ones in person. But none of them seem to be suitable for Susan.

And that’s when she meets Dan. He’s a tall author who comes of as a snobbish dick in most of his scenes (I guess they were going for realism), yet we’re expected to believe that he is slowly growing feelings for her. But the problem is, she’s not supposed to be looking for someone to love her, but rather her boss! And if she fails, she’ll be short a job, which is always the sign of a successful woman in these doldrum movies! Whatever will she do?

There’s more convolution to the story: It turns out Dan’s hiding his true identity as a bestselling author who has taken too long of a break between books, but that is neither here nor there. And there’s also Beatrice, the “villain”, who’s a longtime receptionist at Bell and Howe who will do whatever it takes to get rid of Abby. And some tripe about how - on top of sorting through thousands of potential dating candidates - Abby also has to bring Susan a new book that Bell and Howe can publish. Because, you know, even though she’s doing her a huge favor, she still also has to do her job…that she doesn’t technically have…because there were no editor positions available. Whatever. You know the drill…just go along with it, okay? 

This one is slightly amusing, although it’s mainly for Dan’s coldness. He just has a distance about him that makes all of his lines seem completely insincere, especially when he realizes he is growing feelings for Abby. Again, I guess that could be considered a little bit of realism on the part of Andrew Dunbar, who plays the character (lots of authors and creative types are socially awkward), but considering nothing around him is anything even remotely grounded in reality, just makes it feel off. I can't tell if he's taking the role too seriously, or not even making any effort whatsoever. I guess it's impressive that he can consistently toe that line so well. 

Unfortunately, when it’s not “slightly” entertaining, it’s really quite boring. There’s not much in the way of humor, so it’s all just watching one crusty author fall in love with one dull, book-obsessed woman. Just because they might be a match made in heaven, doesn’t mean it's one that anyone should be subjected to.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 4/10

TRAILER

A Christmas in the Pines (2021)

Director: Gary Wheeler

Writer(s): Natasha Baron
Starring: Jillian Murray, Dean Geyer, Leigh-Allyn Baker and Grant Godeve

Well I think we’re finally starting to round out the holiday season, and what a ride it’s been: After getting off to a great start, the quality of movies seemed to quickly decrease the closer to Christmas we got. Was it just a case of rom-com burnout, or just the way things worked out? I’m not sure the answer to that, but what I do know is that we’ve got a review of A Christmas in the Pines forthcoming. Will this end the streak of awfulness, or contribute to it?

You know how all these vapid holiday love stories have ridiculous plotlines? I mean, that’s part of the draw: escapism in its highest form. These movies aren’t just content to put the two leads in true love, but they have to run through every trope possible on their way to getting there. There’s the interrupted kiss; the misunderstanding that leads to a fight; the initial “hatred” of each other that soon blossoms into neverending passion (why do characters in these movies always have to hate each other in the beginning); the list goes on and on.

A Christmas in the Pines takes the creative license afforded these movies, and shoves it right out the window; it's almost a masterclass in the ludicrous. For some, that might be part of its appeal; for others, who like their love stories to be more straightforward and “traditional”, it might be a turn-off. Personally, I find myself somewhere in between the two camps.

Ariel Colt is a young(ish) woman looking to purchase a cottage, just because she wants one. (That’s a rather expensive impulse buy.) Right after she signs on the dotted line, another interested party enters the house…this is Mark, a young, handsome man who also has his heart set on buying it. Well, Ariel signed it first, so it belongs to her, right? Not exactly. Instead, through some weird glitch in the system, the buyer accepted both offers. That means the two of them own the same house.

In order to decide who “deserves” it, the realtors set up a little game: whoever goes beyond the land’s boundaries first loses, which then transfers the cottage to the remaining person. 

At first, Ariel seems to hate Mark, only we know she doesn’t. Why do these movies think it’s cute to have the characters hate each other at first? I mean, I get that people like the kind of dramatic, up-and-down relationships, and I can see it happening once in a while, but it seems like every holiday movie these days requires one lead to initially hate the other.That doesn’t seem very Christmaslike!

Well, are you following me so far? It’s pretty ridiculous, right? Well, buckle yourselves in, because it’s about to get even worse: Desperate to get Ariel to break, Mark calls in his family to come visit him, hoping their appearance will drive Ariel out. In an attempt to fight back, Ariel does the same…only to have both sets of parents get along famously. So now what do they do? Well, there’s nothing really left for them to do besides fall in love.

If it sounds like it’s entertaining, it’s not really; at least, not as much as it should be. The best thing in the whole movie: Mark’s dad’s terrifying smile, which he flashes at a couple different points. It’s so over-the-top we had to rewind it just to make sure we saw things correctly…we did. Outside of that, there’s not really anything all that interesting: the dynamics are okay between the two, but I wouldn’t say chemistry is a strong suit. It’s decent enough to be serviceable, but there’s definitely no “gotta have you” feeling radiating off either one.

Despite the dad’s creepy smile, the cast is actually pretty likable all-around, which makes what should be an irredeemably sappy story at least somewhat palatable. There really isn’t much in the way of humor, aside from the typical lame dad-style jokes that (I think) are supposed to fall flat; unfortunately, that just leaves an increasingly implausible love story as its central premise, with two leads who feel rather indifferent about each other.

Does it snap the streak of awful Christmas movies? Technically, but only because the past couple are the worst we’ve seen all season. This is a slight improvement over those, but given the ridiculous premise, isn’t anywhere near as entertaining as it should have been. The two lovebirds aren't the only ones that are indifferent about this.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

It's not enough to just read about the smile. You gotta see the smile.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 4.5/10

TRAILER

Christmas in the Wilds (2021)

Director: Justin G. Dyck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck. 

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

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

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 1/10

TRAILER

Lonestar Christmas (aka Christmas Forgiveness) (2020)

Director: Lucie Guest
Writer(s): Casie Tabanou and Alison Spuck McNeeley
Starring: Stephanie Bennett, Marco Grazzini, Brent Stait and Colleen Wheeler

It had been a while since a holiday movie got our blood boiling; in fact, you'd have to go back to last year to find one. Usually, it's all-too-common an occurrence for us, when plotlines become almost unbearably ridiculous, or characters become too annoying in their quest to find true love. And while these movies always toe that thin line, none that we've seen this year have crossed that line.

And then came Lonestar Christmas, which is a movie about an irredeemably annoying woman who falls in love with a man that is clearly too good for her. 

She is the worst type of person, one that constantly harps on how independent she is, while simultaneously explaining to anyone who will listen about how she’s a single mom raising two kids, because her husband had the gall to go and die on her. Well, she doesn't mention that last part to everyone, but that's what happened. 

The woman is Erin. She makes it pretty clear that she doesn’t “need” a man, but of course by the end of the movie she ends up with one anyway. Our story starts when the idiotic heroine straps Christmas presents to the top of her car (?) despite clearly having enough space to fit them inside (Also, why is she bringing so many presents to the house of a man she despises?). It should come as a surprise to no one that the gifts fall off, littering the street with wrapped goodies…and that is when Mateo comes in.

He’s a handsome young man, who owns a tamale shop in his small town that’s widely revered as the best one in the entire state. He happens to be the one to stumble on Erin’s crime scene of presents, and offers to help. Of course, being the “strong” “independent” woman that she is, she initially resists…before realizing that she actually does need some help after all. He helps her load them up, and follows her to her father’s house…where we discover that him and the father, Gary, are good friends. 

But Erin doesn’t share that vision of her own father. You see, she harbors some deep resentment towards him for reasons that - at this point - are completely unclear. But whatever it is, it must be a pretty big deal, considering it took a lot of convincing to get her to agree to a visit in the first place. It was only seeing the excited look on her kids’ faces, who have no doubt been deprived of seeing their “Grandee” (which is apparently a stupid term for “Grandpa” that I have heard nowhere else) over a long period of time, that got her to cave.

So what is this terrible crime that he’s guilty of? Murdering her mother? Molesting her as a small child? Punching a handicapped child in the face? I mean, judging from the cold-hearted way she treats him, it has to be something like that. Nope…not being around enough when she was a kid, because he was busy going to school and working a full time job to help support his family. Yes, that’s it. It’s hinted at around the midway point of the movie, which leads you to think there’s more to the story…but there’s not. What’s even more frustrating: She’s planning on doing the exact same fucking thing! Good God. 

Sure, not having your grandfather around would be tough, especially for a younger child. But once you grew up, wouldn’t you understand their sacrifice? Apparently not this sack of shit, who spends the entire movie avoiding discussions with her father, and scoffing at anyone who likes the genuinely nice guy. 

These scenes are somewhat heartbreaking, because the guy clearly regrets not being there for her. There's even a scene where Erin walks away, scoffing at his latest attempt at redemption, while he stands there with a shattered look on his face, as if he's about to cry. And even despite her hard-headedness, he clearly harbors no hard feelings towards her, which makes Erin’s reluctance to see that so great, that you want to just punch her in the face. Honestly, nothing else in the movie even matters: Her romance with Mateo is just a sidebar to the elephant in the room, which is the terrible relationship with her father that's pretty much entirely her fault.

I’ll admit that my wife and I missed the final 15 or so minutes, because we were…busy doing other things, and we definitely didn’t feel even the slightest need to go back and see what we missed. I’m sure we can fill in the blanks: Somehow she sees what an irredeemable piece of garbage she was, and finally accepts her father's apologies, while getting a man who could do so much better.

This is one of those Christmas movies where no one gets what they deserve.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 2/10

TRAILER

Guess Who's Coming to Christmas (2013)

Director: Kristoffer Tabori
Writer(s): Tippi Dobrofsky and Neal H. Dobrofsky
Starring: Drew Lachey, MacKenzie Porter, Ellie Harvey and Peter LaCroix

After wading through a couple of lackluster American holiday romances, we figured we were on pace for a third. I mean, virtually all these rehashed Christmas movies feature disgraced Hollywood celebrities clinging to the last vestiges of relevance, but this one takes things a step further by featuring Drew Lachey, Nick’s much less popular brother. Whereas Nick blew up and became A-level famous for a while (thanks largely in part to his marriage to “it-girl” Jessica Simpson), Drew’s biggest claim to fame was as a member of ‘90s boy band 98 Degrees. He re-found the spotlight a few years later by winning the second season of “Dancing with the Stars”…and hasn’t really done a whole lot to catch the public’s eye since.

Would you believe it if I told you that not only is Guess Who’s Coming to Christmas competently made, but that it’s genuinely entertaining? 

I’m a sucker for celebrities who can make fun of themselves, and Drew really lives it up here as Dax, a musician and former heartthrob who is quickly losing his fame thanks to tanking album sales. In a last-ditch effort to save his fledgling career, he listens to the advice of Jason, his manager, and agrees to grant the Christmas wish of one of his fans.

The “winner” is Kelly Harding, a twentysomething girl who still has a poster of Dax hanging on her wall. Kelly is flabbergasted, considering she never even entered the contest; as it turns out, it was her nerdy younger brother Tim who submitted the entry. Needless to say, the entire family is surprised when a clearly less-than-enthused Dax shows up on their front steps. He plans on staying at a hotel for most of his trip, an idea that Jason nixes; instead, he’s forced to stay the entire week in the Harding household, made up of Kelly and Tim, mother Lynne, and their father…Reverend Harding. 

What’s refreshing about this one - and what provides most of the comedy early on - is Dax’s clear disdain for his current situation. He doesn’t try to mask it with any sort of kindness whatsoever; he makes it known that this contest was not his idea, and that he’d rather be anywhere else than hanging with the Hardings. Indeed, for someone trying to save their career, this is clearly a step in the wrong direction.

This is one of those rare holiday movies that “goes for broke”, at least as far as Christmas-themed rom-coms can go. Take, for instance, a scene in which a desperate Dax breaks into the family’s liquor cabinet (which is reserved for “special occasions” only) while the family is at church, awaiting his arrival. He shows up, alright, but completely hammered, causing a scene by loudly yelling before collapsing before horrified onlookers at the front of the church. 

In another scene, he attempts to get Kelly into bed with him, simply because she was a fan, and he is bored. And what better way for a "rockstar" to pass the time than by sleeping with a groupie? Only, in this case, his attempts lead only to rejection, a notion that's foreign to him. While this scene is actually kind of uncomfortable, it does ring with unexpected honesty: Here is a famous person who is so used to getting what he wants, that he almost feels entitled to it. It's a rather strong departure from the saccharine "goodness" of most holiday sap-fests.

But what really makes Guess Who's Coming to Christmas work so well are the supporting characters: Despite Kelly’s father being a preacher, who has strict rules for those living inside his home (no matter how famous they might have been), it never becomes preachy. In fact, he comes off as a genuinely nice guy; even after Dax’s drunken interruption in his own church - which I figured would be the perfect opportunity for the Reverend to berate him, force Biblical passages down his throat, or even attempt to kick him out - he does the opposite, seeing a good guy who’s just in need of a few life changes. It’s sad how having such human characters in a movie like this isn’t just a welcome change: It actually borders on “shocking”. 

There still has to be some tropes, such as how he slowly changes his tune, as the once-foreign concept of "family" becomes more comfortable to him over (initially forced) family dinners. And of course his aversion to such a close-knit unit has to do with his own upbringing, which was filled with turmoil. That explains the reason he's a curmudgeonly thirtysomething who sees the good in nothing. But even his rather sudden, 98-degree change from cynical man to family man somehow manages to feel as natural as it can, thanks mainly to Drew's handling of the character. (There's something I never thought I'd say about a Lachey.)

In the end, this is a love story between Dax and Kelly, so of course there are the obligatory rom-com sequences where Dax must choose between his career and a new life outside of the limelight. And of course with his musical background (and the background of co-star MacKenzie Porter, who is also a musician), we are treated to an original song that, honestly, isn't as bad as it could have been. It might all still lead to a completely expected conclusion, but the fun is in the ride, not the destination. And this is a ride that is more fun than it should be.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 8/10

As a little side note, I’m a little baffled as to the reasoning behind the title. As virtually everyone knows, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is a movie about a white girl bringing her black boyfriend over for dinner, in the midst of ‘60s level racism. It was a landmark film, tackling an important issue that had been dividing the country for several decades. Its use here seems to insinuate a similar occurrence, but while Drew’s manager is black, he doesn’t factor in to the romantic aspects of the story whatsoever. Maybe I'm reading too much into it - titles don't have specific requirements for use - but it seems an odd choice for a title featuring two white leads.

CLIP (there doesn't seem to be a trailer)

A Castle for Christmas (2021)

Director: Mary Lambert
Writer(s): Ally Carter and Kim Beyer-Johnson
Starring: Brooke Shields, Cary Elwes, Lee Ross and Andi Osho

After going down the foreign rom-com rabbit hole for our last few movie viewings, we finally returned to the bland American trash that we have grown so accustomed to over the years. And there’s no bigger sign of impending blandness than seeing Brooke Shields starring in it.

Actually, I like Brooke Shields, so I hope she doesn’t take it the wrong way; I just mean that any holiday movie starring a formerly famous star who has been out of the spotlight for a while is a surefire sign that what we're dealing with is a B-grade rom-com (as does the mention of "Christmas" in the title). That goes double because the man that stars opposite her is none other than Cary Elwes, a male actor of similar career trajectory who I unfortunately always equate with Robin Hood: Men in Tights. (Seriously, I don’t know why, but I can’t name any other movie he’s ever been in without looking at IMDb.)

Yeah, there really isn’t much to say about this one: The atmosphere is kind of like The Princess Switch series - what with the royal castle and all - only without much of the charm, or careless fun. 

Shields is Sophie Brown, a best-selling author known for a series of books following the life of one woman whose name escapes me at the moment. I don’t know if you happened to read the synopsis, but virtually every description of the movie I can find mentions that she escapes New York to avoid a “scandal”. I was hoping for something juicy: a sex tape, or a murder perhaps, but do you want to know what salacious act she’s guilty of that warrants switching countries? Killing off a beloved character in one of her books. Seriously. (So I guess technically it was murder?) In the best scene of the movie, she appears on “The Drew Barrymore Show” to explain her reasonings for the controversial decision…but when Drew takes the side of the readers, she realizes that her life is in danger, or something, and decides to hightail it out of the country.

Figuring out her destination is simple, because of course Sophie’s father grew up in a castle somewhere in Scotland (named Dun Dunbar, of all things), so that’s where she escapes to, planning to wait until the fervor over her book series dies down. That’s where she meets Duke Myles, a grumpy man with a heavy Scottish accent who is known for avoiding…well everyone in town, actually. 

As it turns out, the castle that her father grew up in is for sale, and she jumps at the chance to buy it. But that crotchety old Duke isn’t a big fan of her, even though it’s pretty obvious from the outset that he really is, but must hide his feelings underneath a facade of constant anger and frowning. You know, because that’s the best way to get a girl.

Blah blah blah, they end up together and the movie ends, hopefully not making room for a sequel.

It’s all just…devoid of any substance. I mean, that (and various other phrases) are words I could use to describe many of these holiday gag-fests, but in this case, it’s really the only way to describe it. The comedy is based almost entirely on watching Elwes get mad at everything, with occasional shots of his dog, Hamish, thrown in for additional, basic laughs. I mean, virtually any time a movie resorts to deriving humor out of a pet - something that’s guaranteed to elicit an “awwww” and obligatory laugh from almost every member of the largely female viewer base - you know it’s cruising on autopilot.

Usually these movies have at least something to remind you that you saw it, even if it’s a funny scene - whether intentional or not - or some twisting of the holiday rom-com formula, no matter how slight. But A Castle for Christmas literally has nothing going for it. Nothing. I guess the two leads are decent enough together - though I wouldn’t say there’s a whole lot in the way of chemistry - and often look like they’re having at least a bit of fun, but unfortunately none of that is contagious. And the use of a mute man whose only line talks about the importance of true love just made me want to stick a shotgun to my head and squeeze the trigger.

I mentioned that the best scene is her appearance on "The Drew Barrymore Show", but there's actually one that tops it: The end credits sequence finds Sophie back on Drew's show to promote her new book (which of course is based on her time in the castle). What makes the scene so funny is it’s the first time the movie really embraces a carefree, comedic attitude, as the scene appears to be completely improvised, with multiple takes and behind-the-scenes moments thrown in. It’s refreshing because it’s not presented as a finished scene, but that’s what makes it completely unique; it’s obvious the two of them are friends in real life, and their interplay is easily the best example of chemistry in this whole godforsaken mess.

Oh well, at least now I have two movies to equate Cary Elwes with.

RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

• Characters crossing over from different Netflix movies into others seems to be a thing these days: Look for Mrs. Donatelli and Frank de Luca, from The Princess Switch franchise, in a small cameo where they check in as guests to the castle. Does this mean that romance has finally blossomed between them?

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 2/10

TRAILER

Good on Paper (2021)

Director: Kimmy Gatewood
Writer(s): Ilina Schlesinger

Starring: Ilina Schlesinger, Ryan Hansen, Margaret Cho and Rebecca Rittenhouse

Good on Paper is somewhat of a misnomer, because it’s actually kind of weird on paper: A comedian meets an unattractive man, hangs out a lot with unattractive man, falls in love with unattractive man, and then finds out she was duped by unattractive man. It’s almost like an anti-romance; a movie where love isn’t the endgame, but rather a small part of the journey.

It was written by Ilina Schlesinger - a comedian in real life - and was also based off of an actual incident that happened to her. She changes her name to Andrea Singer, for the purpose of the story, and presumably also changes the name of the man who would win her heart under false pretenses. 

Said unattractive man (those are her words, not mine) is Dennis, a nerdy hedge fund manager who ends up in the seat next to Angela during a plane trip. He recognizes her immediately, and the two hit it off during the plane ride. This eventually leads to a long-term, platonic friendship…until Dennis wants to take things further. While Andrea is initially against the idea, one drugged up night on ‘shrooms suddenly changes her mind, and the two start a whirlwind romance. 

It plays out kind of like a Lifetime thriller with a dash of Hallmark romance thrown in, only with more moments of (intentional) comedy and less of a focus on the thriller aspects. The characters aren’t ever really in any danger, but the gradual revealing of who Dennis really is takes up virtually the whole running time. It’s like one small section of a Lifetime thriller dragged out to feature length.

But it’s not quite as bad as that description makes it sound, thanks largely to Ilina, who is great in the lead role (as well she should be given the personal attachment she had to the film), as well as her supporting cast, including Margaret Cho as Ilina’s best friend, who’s the first to suspect something isn’t right with good ol’ Dennis. 

But I was a little surprised - and disappointed - at just how straightforward it all is. This is a personal story that’s almost too bizarre to be believable, and yet it’s buried underneath the typical tropes of a mystery/thriller. Thanks to Ilina’s screenplay, it’s never boring, but it’s also not terribly interesting; the way it’s presented here, it comes off as the kind of throwaway story you tell to your friends over dinner, instead of a story with actual meat and substance. It's like eating potato chunks with not enough seasoning: They're passable, but mostly just dry and not nearly as worthwhile as they could be.

I would have expected some personal flourishes to give it more of its own identity, but it all just builds up to an ending that seems almost too obvious and unsensational to be true. I guess it’s kind of refreshing that it’s (mostly) grounded in reality, so we don’t get any cheesy attempted murder scenes or pointless violence (aside from one mostly silly sequence near the end). 

Instead, it's just a derivative film that borrows from several different genres, but pulls off none of them convincingly. If you want a romantic comedy, there's not enough of that here to satisfy you; if you want a mystery/thriller, that's confined mostly to the background and is largely predictable. The comedy is easily the strongest part - there are several scenes of genuine laughs - but the remainder of the story is shockingly flat.

RATING: 5.5/10

TRAILER

MARVEL-LESS MARVISTA: Sightless (2020)

Director: Cooper Karl
Writer(s): Karl

Starring: Madelaine Petsch, Alexander Koch, Lee Jones and December Ensminger

I’m tempted to say that Sightless is one of MarVista’s “better” efforts - and it may very well be - but it’s kind of hard to take anything they do seriously at this point. It straddles the line between being just another formulaic thriller for which they are known, and a movie with aspirations of actually being good. The end result is a thriller with no thrills; a mystery with a payoff that is as asinine as it is improbable.

Sightless follows Ellen Ashland, a former violinist who was left blind in a brutal attack. As she is coming to grips with the news that she will never see again, she is given a fancy apartment - paid for by her terrible ex-husband - and a young caretaker named Clayton, who we immediately suspect of being shady simply because he seems nice, and nice people are always evil in this type of movie. The two of them quickly form a bond together, which is also expected considering the protagonist always has to fall for the person in charge of taking care of them.

Through flashbacks and her newly discovered extrasensory sense of hearing, we follow Ellen as she tries to piece together the events that led her to her current state. Who was the gas masked villain whose attack left her blind? Who is the sobbing woman who lives next door and whom Ellen is convinced is being abused by her husband? Why won’t her friend ever answer when she calls? Is Clayton really who he says he is? And what is the deal with the car alarm that she hears every single day at the same exact time? Will you even really care about the answers to any of these questions? The answer is a resounding "no".

Admittedly, Sightless utilizes some pretty clever effects to insinuate things aren’t as they seem, something we already knew considering we’re watching a thriller. For example, in one scene Ellen is looking at a green bird, and asks Clayton to describe it to her. He tells her it’s blue, and the bird changes colors from blue to green in an instant, right before our eyes. In another scene a woman talking to Ellen has no visible wounds, but one suddenly appears after Ellen touches her face and notices a stitched-up gash. It does an interesting job of making us feel about as blind as a piece of visual-oriented media can.

Unfortunately, that - and Madelaine Petsch as Ellen - are really the only two things that stand out here. Actually, I guess that’s kind of a compliment, because in a lot of MarVista productions, nothing stands out at all, except for maybe just how terrible certain aspects are. And, to be clear, there’s also plenty of terrible: The plot “twist” is abysmal, and the movie’s use of a single setting does it more harm than good, by calling attention to just how boring the story is.

This is one of those movies that falls in the black hole of my own ratings system: Despite the occasional flourishes that elevate it above the typical mindless drivel of MarVista, it’s still very much a B-movie at its core. Its aspirations to be so much more than that are somewhat admirable, but unfortunately also prevent it from being entertaining; it’s got all the predictability of similar Lifetime-style productions, but without the self-aware ridiculousness. 

And that, unfortunately, gives one virtually no reason at all to sit through this predictably boring mess.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 2.5/10

TRAILER

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

Girl (2020)

Director: Chad Faust
Writer(s): Faust
Starring: Bella Thorne, Chad Faust, Mickey Rourke and Elizabeth Saunders

My how things have changed for Bella Thorne. Once a Disney superstar, she has since become this generation’s Lindsey Lohan. Well, maybe that’s a slight exaggeration - her fall hasn’t been as far, nor her landing as hard - but she seems to be gradually fading away from the limelight with each passing release. Or at least, losing her credibility.

Now she stars in Girl, as the titular “hero”: a young woman who just wakes up one day and decides she wants to kill the father who abandoned her family several years ago. However, her plan is upended when she arrives in town…only to discover that someone has already offed him.

So, problem solved, right? I mean, she goes to do something, and it’s already done. Doesn’t that mean the mission is accomplished? Sure, she wasn’t the one that got to do it, but someone took out the trash, so to speak, so she should be elated. Instead, she’s upset. The punks who did this all have to pay. Wait...what?

Seriously, that’s the plot. And no, it’s not played for laughs. Unfortunately for us, we know it’s not going to be easy, as the sheriff of the town seems to have it out for our “girl”. Why, could it be because he had something to do with her father’s murder? Why no, it couldn’t be! 

The characters exchange poorly-delivered dialogue that sounds like the writer is channeling his inner David Lynch, or Quentin Tarantino; including bizarre conversations about bizarre things in an effort to up the style quotient. But here, it’s all just empty dialogue. None of it feels natural and none of it is even slightly interesting; in fact, the attempts are often embarrassing. 

I don’t know if this just hit me in the “right” mood, but this is godawful drivel of the lowest common denominator. It’s a pile of junk in a subgenre that’s already littered with junk: the female revenge film. Thorne just walks around, casually sprouting one-liners and attempting to look "cool" as she avoids death time and time again. She gets shot, and has the same reaction I have when my muscles are sore after an intermediate arm workout. She looks like she’d rather be anywhere else but inside this movie, and I don’t really blame her one bit. 

I guess I can partially see the praise: women feeling superior to men is the new “in-thing”, and so it’s the perfect time to release a movie like that into this climate. It’s timely. But timeliness is about the only thing it has going for it, and just because it fits themes that are currently hot trends in Hollywood doesn’t mean that it doesn’t suck. Because it does. Very, very hard.

It sucks harder than any movie I can remember in recent memory. Seriously. I’m sure I’ve seen technically worse movies, but this one tops almost all of them for one reason: expectations. You see, I actually had none. Well, I take that back: I thought it would suck. I just never in a million years thought it would be this terrible. It somehow took my expectations, and completely destroyed them in a way that I wasn’t expecting. 

I guess its timeliness is the only thing that got it onto a streaming service instead of its rightful place inside the Walmart bargain bin.

RATING: 1.5/10

TRAILER

Squared Love (aka Mitosc do kwadratu) (2021)

Director: Filip Zybler
Writer(s): Wiktor Piatkowski and Marzanna Polit

Starring: Adrianna Cheblika, Mateusz Banasiuk, Agnieszka Zulewska and Krzysztof Czeczot

Well, what do we have here? Just when I thought it was only Hollywood that was stupid enough to repackage the same garbage over and over again, and then have the nerve to regift it to us with a brand new bow, we have a Polish attempt at Hallmark-style tripe! Who knew foreign cinema could sink that low?

True-to-form, the plot is legendarily laughable: Enzo (real name: Stefan…more on that later) is a model and playboy obsessed with only two things in life: women and fast cars (and not necessarily in that order). He spends his days cruising around in fancy vehicles, using his natural charm to pick up women, whom he then, presumably, disposes of the next day. However, since this is supposed to be a lighthearted romance, we’re spared the emotional details and consequences of his steady stream of one-night stands, and instead focus on what a lovable douchebag he is.

Monika (that is her real name; she’s also known as Klaudia…more on that later) is a schoolteacher who’s in danger of being fired by her principal thanks to her unorthodox teaching methods - namely, that she makes school fun. Her father (who the writers didn’t even bother to give a name; he’s credited only as “Father of Klaudia”) is a depressed, gullible man who got in too deep with some local gangsters, and borrowed more money than he could pay back. Well, we all know what happens to people who don’t pay back loan sharks.

He is given an ultimatum: If they don’t receive their money - in full - within 30 days, they will kill him. Again, though, this is supposed to be lighthearted fare, so the threats are done as “nice” as possible, even after said goons visit his shop and give him a severe beating. Monika is desperate to save her father and the memory of her mother (who, of course, died years ago, a favorite plot point for this kind of junk) so she moonlights as a model, Klaudia, in an attempt to make ends meet because her schoolteacher salary clearly isn’t enough.

Meanwhile, Enzo is a model who is dumped by his coldhearted, unattractive girlfriend at the beginning, which gives him free reign to terrorize the town (although it appeared he still did the same thing when he was with her; aaaah, those lovable womanizing types). He does need a place to stay, though, so he temporarily moves in with his brother, Andrzej, where we learn that “Enzo” is just his modeling alias, and Stefan is his real name. As it turns out, the two of them have a mutual connection: Andrzej’s wife just left him to go “find herself”, or something of the sort, but mentions that she will be returning at some point. This puts Andrzej in a tough spot, because he’s apparently too busy to watch his school-aged child, Ania, even though we never actually see him leave the house, or act as a parental figure whatsoever.

Thus, Stefan is tasked with taking care of the child, presumably as a favor for Andzrej letting him stay at his house indefinitely. There, he meets Ania’s teacher who is - would you believe it if I told you - Monika! Gee, what are the odds of that? There is instant chemistry between the two, but of course as the nerdy, prude schoolteacher, he can’t just charm the pants off her the way he has with so many women before. But he can already sense she’s not like other women, and he slowly starts to develop actual feelings for her. Are you following me so far?

During all of this, Enzo (who is still managed by his ex) gets cast in an advertisement for a new sportscar. Of course, no commercial for a fast, slick vehicle is complete without a female object for men to ogle over…and guess who gets that role? Would you believe it if I told you it’s the schoolteacher moonlighting as a model, Klaudia? Enzo finds himself falling for both women, and of course is completely unaware they are the same person, leading to a painful scene in which he asks schoolteacher Monika advice on how to impress Klaudia. Can you imagine giving someone advice on how to impress yourself? And how used you must feel knowing that he likes an alternate version of you more than the real you? That doesn’t seem to bother her, though, and she obliges.

So, to recap, Enzo/Stefan is balancing life as a loving uncle, and model, while Monika/Klaudia is tiptoeing the line between schoolteacher and model. Hijinx ensues, until her true identity is revealed, much to the shock of everyone (including her own father)!

Honestly, I was shocked to see the hate leveled at this movie, because this is one of the best B-grade rom-coms I’ve ever seen. The two leads are attractive and fit their roles well, while they also seem to have actual chemistry - I wouldn’t call the scenes between them “electric”, but they are believable as a pairing, and seem both natural and comfortable in their scenes together. This alone elevates it above typical fare. The comedic aspects stay true to the film’s lighthearted approach, with Monika’s red-haired colleague (known only as Teacher #1) stealing the supporting show as a chain-smoking teacher who always finds a reason to grab a cigarette. 

Also, and maybe it’s just me, but I felt like Klaudia does look different enough as Monika to throw Enzo off, at least for a while, although you would think the more he got to know “both”, he would start to see similarities. Even Ania, whom Enzo/Stefan brings on set of the commercial, confidently declares that the two are the same person around the mid-point of the movie…something that she never mentions again, and a fact that Enzo/Stefan just brushes off. It’s a rather confusing scene that would have made more sense if it were placed toward the end, and also further proof of the subgenre’s willful stupidity and complete lack of logic.

However, as we all know, the point of these movies are to watch two attractive people fall in love, logic be damned. Or, in this case, watching one man fall in love with two women, who are actually one and the same. On those grounds, it works. Sure, there are the obligatory, cheesy montages of Stefan and Monika carelessly frolicking in the rain, and his immediate taking to Ania despite clearly being uninterested in children. All of this is par for the course. But what it does, it does well, and all the while consistently maintaining the cheesy, over-the-top atmosphere required in this tired subgenre.

Working against it, though, is its length: Squared Love clocks in at an overbloated 133 minutes. That’s right, 2 hours and 13 minutes. The average length of this kind of tripe is around 90 minutes, because there’s only so much of this sugary bullshit that people can take before it starts to rot brain cells. We happened to break it down into two viewings (by accident; it was late and we got tired) so it didn’t feel overlong, but I’m sure it would have been noticeable if we watched it all at once. And the film does certainly try to cram in a ridiculous number of unnecessary subplots that easily could have been excised without damaging the "integrity" of the script.

Furthermore, let me be clear here: Squared Love is not a good piece of cinema. Even within the wide confines of a rom-com, it’s way too ridiculous and overblown to function as a valid example of a legitimately good romantic comedy. But for what it is - namely, a foreign retread of predictable Hallmark-style love stories - it has enough charm to carry it above most other contenders in a subgenre littered with so much below-average fare, that there really isn’t even a shining example of success.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Kid characters in these movies are almost always annoying, frequently thrown in as a convenient way to show the main character’s “progress” - and also usually meant to be annoying - but Ania refreshingly comes off as down-to-Earth, and never even comes close to being a frustrating character.
• Does Andzrej even know how to be a father? He’s rarely ever seen with Ania, and even when he is, never gives her any kind of emotional support - or any kind of support - whatsoever. Maybe that's why his wife decided to up and leave, although that's pretty terrible in its own right.
• One thing dragging this down: As if the plot already isn’t “full” enough, Monika is constantly harassed by the school principal, who is eagerly looking for a way to get rid of her. Upcoming nationwide exams provide an opportunity to do that, as if her class doesn’t pass, her time is up. There’s really little time devoted to showing her preparing her students for said test, making this a throwaway subplot.
• There’s also another throwaway character in Wiesiek, a sleazy man who works for Monika’s father, and who is somehow the only one who notices more than a passing resemblance between her and Klaudia; he threatens to out her if she doesn’t give in to his (presumably sexual, but still "playful") demands. 
• The Netflix version of this is dubbed, which given the chance, I’m usually against. But I thought the dubbing work was actually pretty good. Sure, the mouths don’t line up with what the people are saying, but the voice acting itself is believable, and matches the characters well.
• Aside from letting the two brothers bond, what is the point of having Ania's mom up and leave? She even comes back at the very end, but is never seen, and the reasons she left - as well as its effect on Andzrej - are never explored.
• The inclusion of Enzo/Stefan's ex is pointless, as there's no real drama between them considering they're technically single. If there is jealousy between her and Klaudia, which is kind of hinted at in a couple scenes, it's yet another thing that is never explored.
• Now that I think about it, most of this movie is completely unnecessary. 

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 7.5/10. That’s right, 7.5.

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