Reviewing media such as games and movies, from a wide variety of genres based on my wildly fluctuating moods and interest. CURRENT FOCUS: Android mobile games. More Roblox reviews coming soon.
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.
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.
Director: Shaun Paul Piccinino Writer(s): Lauren Swickard Starring: Lauren Swickard, Josh Swickard, Ali Afshar and David Del Rio
There are some things that should just be left alone. And yet, it seems to be human nature to mess with it until it becomes a steaming pile of shit. That extends even into the world of lame rom-coms, although generally to a much lesser extent considering the first one is usually pretty bad on its own. However, recent proof comes in the form of The Princess Switch trilogy, which actually had an entertaining first entry, but has steadily gotten worse with each release.
The latest example of this mystifying phenomenon is A California Christmas: City Lights. The first one was about as close to low-budget sappy romantic perfection as you can get. It came out of nowhere, delivered a solid premise with some likable characters and two perfect, attractive leads with a rare chemistry seen in these movies (it comes as no surprise they are married in real life); it all felt so…effortless. Sure, it was a basic, by-the-numbers premise, but it was executed well.
City Lights, however, doesn’t waste any time in dragging down the potential franchise. This isn’t just “lesser” than the first one, nor is it merely “inferior”; this one falls face first off a cliff. It reduces (or removes) everything that was great about the first one, while simultaneously increasing all the things the first one was missing that made it so good.
Like the story. In the first one, you may recall, Joseph stole the identity of a man named Manny in order to work at a farm he was hoping to acquire for his company. Well, he meets the owner of the land - an attractive girl named Callie who just so happens to be his age - and the two of them start a relationship so strong, that Joseph leaves his successful big city world behind.
But now it’s about to catch up with him. Flash forward a year from the events of the first one: The duo are still in love, living on the same land, where they run both a farm, and a winery. But as we know, things can never be smooth for long: Joseph gets a call from his mother, who runs Van Aston Enterprises - the family business - informing him that she is stepping down, effective immediately. Okay, why should he care? Because he’s next in line to run it, of course!
I love how in these movies no one can ever say no. He’s happy with his current life, and yet - when faced with this sudden thing he has no control over - he can’t just have his mom give the company to someone else? Or given the urgency, find someone to temporarily cover until he can figure out a plan? But no, he has to drop everything and take the first plane out to California, with his wife in tow. And boy does she learn a thing or two about her husband that she - presumably - didn’t already know. Like how he was a playboy, and lived his life in excess. You would think these things would get discussed before marriage, but they never seem to be in the movies.
Anyway, long story short, Joseph lets the big city life get to his head, while Callie starts spending more time with her former fiance’s (who died) brother, who runs a soup kitchen and plays the male lead in a two-person play involving the Virgin Mary (I forget who he plays…Jesus maybe? I don’t know.) The two share a weird connection, where you think it might turn romantic, but it never does…yet that doesn’t stop the two-faced snake Victoria (it’s always a Victoria), Joseph’s former colleague and romantic interest, from attempting to blow it out of proportion in order to get Joseph to leave her. Ho-fucking-hum.
This one is a misguided mess from the outset. When you have two married leads with a believable connection, you would think that’s something your story should focus on. After all, that’s the entire point of the whole romance subgenre. People don’t watch these tired retreads for the stories; they watch them to see two attractive people go through (lighthearted) hell to form some kind of ridiculously over-the-top bond that, presumably, lasts a lifetime. (A great plot for a spoof would be to follow a couple from a previous rom-com, faux-documentary style, as they’re now out of love and washed-up versions of their former selves.) A California Christmas: City Lights makes the unforgivable decision to shy away from the intense attraction the two stars have for each other, instead surrounding them with a bloated story that can’t help but steal the spotlight.
It also makes the mistake of giving the supporting castt nothing meaningful to do. While Manny and Joseph’s limo driver - two excellent, likable characters from the original movie - make a return, they are pretty much expendable. The limo driver is barely in it at all, and while Manny sees an increase in screen time, he literally spends it all trying to capture the attention, and the heart, of a woman who is helping him out on the farm. That’s great he gets a love interest, and the girl he falls for is cute, but it quickly becomes not only repetitive, but completely unnecessary. Especially considering the overblown plot, which gives Joseph and Callie far too much screen time already.
I’m shocked to discover that, like the first one, this mess was written by Lauren Swickard, who plays Callie. One would think she would tailor the story to suit the strengths of those involved, but instead she’s responsible for this one-note mess, which takes the series into a new direction that hopefully leads to no further movies.
STRAY OBSERVATIONS
The “stitches” subplot involving Hannah is classically retarded. She’s also a shit actress.
Speaking of which, what is the point of her anyway? Just to show up in a couple scenes and whine? Yet another example of unnecessary characters added to an overinflated story.
And the total landslide of shit holiday movies continues. How did I think we could have gotten away with having a whole season of “good” Christmas movies? Of course I should have known it would regress to the means at some point, but I didn’t know just how quickly things could backslide in such a short amount of time.
Admittedly, we were “forced” to watch this movie by accident, when my wife - who was just trying to read more information on it - accidentally “borrowed” it from hoopla. I mean, we could have easily just borrowed something else (our limit was recently upped to 14 borrows per month) and let this one go to waste, but we didn’t want to spend our library's hard-earned money for nothing, so we sucked it up and jumped right in. After all, it saved us several minutes of searching for something potentially better.
Spending that time would have been worth it, because this is one of those cheery movies that attempts to mask the irredeemable selfishness of its main character underneath the facade of holiday happiness. It asks us to care for a character that no one should care for, a bad actress, and a chemistry-less romance; any of those are potentially lethal combinations, but all of them together equals an unforgivable mess of cataclysmic proportions.
Lucy is a woman from L.A. (why is it always L.A.?) with a disappearing upper lip, who inherits her family's Christmas store following the death of her grandfather. So what does she plan to do with her grandfather’s pride and joy, which also happens to be the most beloved shop in the entire small town (why does it always have to be a small town?), and the one she used to help out with when she was a child? She’s going to sell it. All those precious memories down the fucking drain, with nary a second thought.
That’s the first fatal flaw: In any other movie, she would be presented as a selfish cunt who is only after her own interests. I mean, that’s exactly what she is. She’s selling the family heirloom simply because she loves her L.A. life and doesn’t want to give it up to take care of some shop that she has no interest in. Nevermind what everyone else thinks about it (including her grandfather, who must be rolling around in his grave): Her opinion is the only one that matters, and she wants to push this sale through as quickly as possible so she can get back to her busy California lifestyle. But since we are supposed to care for her and cheer for her to succeed, all of those negative traits are hidden under smiling faces and cheeriness.
So selfish is she that she never stops to even contemplate other options until the very end, like how she could hire someone to run the shop in her absence while she simply rakes in the dough as the owner while still living her best life in California. And, so dumb is she that she decides to create a website for a business that’s going to be closing down in two weeks. That's right: she puts all of the products online, giving them a web presence just in time for it to close down. Well, business clearly isn’t her strong suit. Great job, grandpa.
But of course things don’t go according to her plan. The year-round Christmas shop has a few tricks up its sleeve to prevent Lucy from selling, like Carol, the seasonal hire who seems to have some sort of magical powers (it doesn’t take long to figure out who she is). Oh, and the shop itself, which also harbors magical powers capable enough to ensure that every customer gets the perfect gift.
As if this isn't lame enough, there has to be the obligatory romance, which unfortunately isn’t all that interesting: Lucy’s beau here is Scott, the owner of a diner across the street. For whatever reason, he’s smitten by Lucy at first sight, and will do whatever he can to win her heart. Well, he’s willing to do everything except tell her how he feels. You know, because hiding your feelings is the best way to get a girl. She's also against the idea at first; remember she wants to get out of her hometown as quickly as possible, and doesn't have any time to entertain the thought of dating a smalltown boy!
Anyway, whatever. We all know how this one’s going to end. This is just another dull foray into the holiday romance subgenre that’s done in by a lead who’s not attractive enough to overcome her deeply-flawed personality, and a love story that takes second stage to the “drama” of her trying to sell the store. As if we're all on the edge of our seats wondering what will happen next.
Does anyone remember romance movies where love actually took center stage?
RANDOM OBSERVATIONS
In the scene where Lucy’s mom gets out of the car at the end, why does she look like she’s in the middle of having a stroke?
Why is everyone in town so cheery? Even though Lucy comes in simply to shut it down, and even though all of them are sad to see the store go, none of them harbor any ill will towards her. Even Randall, her co-worker, who knows he will be out of a job once the bitch’s deal goes through.
The side story between Randall and the delivery girl is all sorts of cringe, adding another layer to a story that’s already cringe to begin with.
Dig the Wix advertisement
When yet another person questions her decision to create a website with the store closing in less than a month: “Why does everyone keep saying that?”
How do ideas like this get greenlit?
Have I mentioned how much I hate Lucy? She has to be one of the worst characters ever written in a holiday movie.
I swear the director's only direction to all the elderly extras was: "Act as unconvincingly cheery as possible!" No person who's knocking on death's store is going to be filled with that much joy. Plus, we all know old people are entitled know-it-alls to think they deserve the world because they've lived in it for so long.
That must be a pretty miserable closing sale: Despite their assurances to the contrary, there's a lot of inventory left on those walls.
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.
Director: Bradley Walsh Writer(s): Emily Golden Starring: Jessica Lowndes, Chad Michael Murray, Dennis Andres and Michael Brown
Taylor Harris (it’s a she) is a librarian who loves to research boring historical topics, as we learn in the over-the-top opening scene where she disproves some kind of historical theory just from reading excerpts from a book, while exchanging over-the-top cringe-smiles with her research partner. But that campy happiness is short-lived,when her boss informs her - in the middle of the library and rather nonchalantly - that funding for the library has been cut, and she is being let go.
She turns to her brother for support, and that’s when he offers her the chance to stay with him and his wife, in Forest Ridge, or whatever the dumb small town is called. She is initially reluctant, but thankfully (is that the right word) agrees to go just so that we have something to watch, besides her looking for jobs during the day, and crying herself to sleep every night.
Tragedy strikes poor Taylor immediately, when during her trek - on dry pavement and during a very mild autumn day - she somehow hits “black ice” and is thrust off the road. Common sense dictates that whoever shows up first is the one she will end up falling for: If that’s the case, it’s Chad Michael Murray! Well, it’s technically Joel, but he is played by Chad Michael Murray.
Joel is a man who has made millions in the tech industry of California, and is in Forest Ridge to turn one of their antiquated hotels into a popular tourist destination. This could potentially be a good idea for a number of reasons - bringing extra jobs to the city, as well as loads of extra money - but of course the old-fashioned townsfolk are quick to refuse the idea. That hotel, the Graff, holds so many good memories that they don’t want to see it turned into some sort of fancy resort.
But why is Joel targeting Forest Ridge out of all the other podunk villages in the world? Why, because he himself was raised there! Gasp!
Taylor takes a liking to Joel, obviously unaware of both his status as a “tech bro” - namely, a douchebag who makes a vast majority of his money in the technology sector (and the type of person Taylor randomly swears off, unprovoked, in a conversion to her friend) - and as the man looking to renovate the beloved hotel. Why would she care? Well, because her own brother works at the Graff as a maintenance man, of course! And he is certain that Joel will wipe out the entire staff if he gets his way.
The only way to save the hotel? To prove that it has past significance to the town, which will then allow it to be registered as a “historical landmark”, thus allowing the city to protect its status and block Joel from gutting it. Hmm…remember when I said Taylor was good at researching things, and how she works at a library? I wonder if she might be the one to find some kind of tie between history and the Graff!
But this puts her in an odd predicament, where she must test her loyalty to her brother, while simultaneously trying to appease the man whom she’s falling in love with. And as these bits of disgustingly escapist entertainment never allow for even a shred of negativity, we know it's all going to end with all of the characters getting exactly what they want, and living a (presumably) happy life together.
Chad Michael Murray is likable as Joel, but this one is just a wayward mess, taking itself far too seriously than it should, and relying far too much on Lowndes's forced smile to carry things along. It's not great, but there's enough here to warrant at least a viewing, assuming either nothing else is available, or you're just looking for some mindless background noise.
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.
Director: Andrew Lawrence Writer(s): Kaylin Richardson Starring: Danielle C. Ryan, Joey Lawrence, Matthew Lawrence, Andrew Lawrence
Mistletoe Mixup is that perfect example of what not to do with a holiday movie; it has the kind of story that becomes flat-out creepy the more and more you think about it. There are a lot of holiday rom-coms like that, actually, where characters are so full of Christmas cheer you know the only thing actually running through their mind is suicide. This isn’t like that though; it’s a kind of unnerving where it feels like something isn’t quite right underneath the surface. Parts of it would actually make a solid basis for a horror film.
And yet it manages to be just charming enough to not be a complete waste of time; in fact, I’d dare say that it’s “decent” given the circumstances, at least as far as these sappy holiday romances go.
The more popular Lawrence brothers (Joey and Matthew) play Tom and Austin, respectively: two brothers who just so happen to catch the attention of an available blonde named, of all things, Holly. But the catch is, they don’t know they’re both vying for the attention of the same woman. How does that happen? Well sit down, because this is a hilarious tale that I just couldn’t make up.
It all starts out at a Christmas tree farm, where Holly is looking for the perfect tree. Tom spots her and, even though he doesn’t work there, offers her advice on which one to pick, helps her chop it down, and affixes it to her car. But on the way home, the tree flies off, pinning a man under it in the middle of the road. Well would you believe it if I told you that man is none other than Austin, the other brother?! He even unknowingly ends up one-upping his brother by getting invited into her home, accompanying her while she goes shopping for Christmas decorations, and helping her decorate her tree. (And of course he doesn’t even end up with a kiss to show for it.) Isn’t that a little weird? I mean what single woman would not only invite a man she doesn’t know into her home, but also invite him to spend the entire day with her?
Clearly, she is smitten with the young man, but starts to lose interest when he ignores all of her texts. Hmm…I’m sure there’s not a good reason why he’s not responding!
Anyway, Tom is a creepo and basically invites Holly to meet his family within a day or two of meeting her. You know, because that’s normal behavior for someone you haven’t even kissed, let alone spent any sort of one-on-one time with. Even more bewildering: She agrees. Man, if this woman isn’t desperate, I don’t know who is. All of the characters in these sappy love-fests generally come off as women who need a man in order to function, but poor ol’ Holly here takes it to the next level.
Well, of course Tom’s family is also Austin’s…and that’s when the shit really hits the fan. With the three of them under the same roof, they must duke it out with each other to win her heart once and for all. Gee, I wonder if they’ll learn a little something about the importance of family in the process?
This just is all sorts of nope on paper, but thankfully the cast is (mostly attractive) enough to overcome some of the more eerie aspects. I mean, just the basic premise of having two brothers go after the same girl…isn’t that a little bizarre? Of course, most people will immediately go to the intimate possibilities…even kissing the same girl seems a little weird to me. But maybe it’s more morally accepted these days (after all, I have no siblings whatsoever, so I have no personal attachment to that feeling).
Obviously, since this is a Hallmark-style movie, we don’t have to worry about the seedier side of the equation. Instead, we’re still faced with a whole slew of dilemmas: How can she pick one without hurting the other? If things didn’t work out, then would she always wonder if she picked the “right” one? (Oh wait, in this case, the “Wright” one, because of course that’s the brothers’ last name.) If she picks Austin, will Tom stalk her and eventually kill her for rejecting him? Or has the competition heated up so much between the two that they lost sight of what they were even fighting for?
Without giving away spoilers (because we’re always on the edge of our seats to see how these bubbly stories end), let’s just say the ending wraps everything up with a nice little bow, ensuring that no one is left empty-handed, and no one is left sad on Christmas day. Aaah, if only real life was this simple.
I mentioned that parts of the story are unnerving, and exhibit A is Tom’s character, who comes off almost as desperate as Holly. I mentioned he invites her over to his family’s house immediately after meeting her, but he seems a little too intense even beyond that: He's virtually everywhere she is, and is always asking her to accompany him somewhere. He’s never forceful about it, but that’s exactly what makes him so eerie. I mean, after all, Ted Bundy knew how to charm his victims before brutally offing them, and while comparing Tom to Ted might be a little too far-fetched, it doesn’t feel as far off as it should be.
The movie derives much of its humor from watching the ridiculous (and childish) lengths the two brothers will go to win the heart of a girl whom they both just met. Needless to say it gets a little old after a while, even for the desperate Holly, who is so fed-up with their shenanigans that she threatens to leave their family estate, and go home single, where she will probably take a bottleful of sleeping pills to ease the pain of another holiday season spent alone.
Actually, that would be a better ending than the one we’re presented with.
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.
Director: Juana Macias Writer(s): Laura Sarmiento Pallares, based on the novel by Elisabet Benavent Starring: Maria Valverde, Alex Gonzalez, Elisabet Casanovas and Susana Abaitua
After forcing our way through most of the lame American rom-coms - you know, those B-grade (or worse) flicks that turn predictability and “blah” into an art form - we’ve recently begun focusing our attention to foreign attempts at the subgenre. And, despite their questionably low IMDb scores, we’ve found them to be much more charming - and infinitely better - on the whole.
Sounds Like Love is a Spanish import that follows Maca, a 30-year-old who works as an assistant to a cold-hearted and cruel social media influencer. When she’s not at work, she’s either spending time with her two best friends, Jimena and Adriana, or hooking up with a man named Coque for some casual sex inside her car.
Of course, she has some troubles with love or we wouldn’t be watching a rom-com: Her romantic kryptonite comes in the form of Leo, her ex-lover and the one who got away. The two of them were inseparable, looking to get a house together, before he just up and split, without so much as a goodbye. Well, guess who reappears just as she seems to be getting her life back on track…and guess who’s also dating one of her colleagues?
At first, the two start trading jabs, with the jilted woman attempting to gain some revenge on the lover who did her wrong: she shows up to his college class and calls his itinerary out for being sexist. He, in turn, pretends to seduce her, before suddenly revealing it was just a game. But then, what appear to be hostile feelings between the two, somehow bloom into the possibility of true love.
What separates Sounds Like Love apart from similar movies of its ilk is the narrative structure: Maca constantly breaks the fourth wall, talking to the viewer directly in between scenes to explain things in more elaborate detail; she’s visited by “angel” and “devil” versions of herself in a segment called “Crappy Decisions”; and the story doesn’t just focus on her own love life, but also those of Jimena and Adriana. This at least helps to give it more of a “complexity” missing from similar movies, where the main couple are essentially the only characters we’re supposed to be cheering for.
Honestly, this isn’t a rom-com so much as a vehicle for “female empowerment”. I know, I know, you’re probably groaning at that statement; it’s become a catch-all for all sorts of preachy vehicles that attempt to force the independence of women down our throats. In fact, the rom-com itself might be a thing of the past soon, as female voices rebel against the idea of a woman’s sole purpose in life being in a committed relationship with a member of the opposite sex to begin with.
But before you go casting this aside for that reason, hear me out: This is done in a charming way. It’s about one woman who discovers that she can’t possibly love someone else, until she loves herself first. That idea might sound a little corny, if not cliched, but it presents that angle without ever being too heavy handed.
There are some flaws: For starters, this was based on the "Canciones y Recuerdos" two-book series from author Elisabet Benavent. The books take up 500 pages, of which Sounds Like Love had to cut down into a runtime under two hours. This means there were entire plotlines that had to be excised; it’s a shame Netflix couldn’t turn this into a two-movie deal to fully flesh out the books into movie form.
Another example: The change between Maca and Leo’s previously hostile relationship, into legitimate love is rather forced and unrealistic. The two spend the first half of the movie trading barbs with one another (some of which are actually quite brutal emotionally, especially for Maca), and then all of a sudden Leo becomes a good guy who falls back in love with his former flame. It's done without precedent, and so quickly that it seems like a more elaborate prank.
Despite those cons, I’m actually shocked at Sounds Like Love’s dismissal in reviews as a “predictable” rom-com; it makes me wonder if those people actually watched it. I mean, I guess I can’t really call it unpredictable, but within the realm of these movies, it has a few tricks up its sleeve.
Like the fleshing out of its side characters, Jimena and Adriana. The former is a woman obsessed with her dead lover, who searches for characteristics of him in every man that she dates. The latter is a woman in an unfulfilled marriage, who becomes attracted to the “other” woman in a threesome with her husband. Their stories blend in with Maca’s, and while they lead toward obvious conclusions, they have an element that is both human, and uplifting.
Then there’s Maca’s ending, in which she reveals what the ending would be like “if this were a rom-com”. In a refreshing change of pace, that’s not the way this story ends.
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.
Director: LP Writer(s): Ellen Rapoport Starring: Nasim Pedrad, Anna Camp, Lamorne Morris and Sarah Burns
You know what? I always complain about how lame most “rom-coms” are, following boring formulas to a “T” while barely interjecting any original ideas of their own. I mean, technically almost every movie (and every book, piece of music, etc.) is a retread of many others - there are so many existing pieces of media that it’s impossible to create something that’s entirely unique - but cheesy rom-coms are almost unwavering in their commitment to tired tropes.
But then I forget about the other side of the equation: Rom-coms that try to be “edgy”. These are almost worse in that they still follow the same cliches of Hallmark-style crapfests, but just throw in a few extra “fucks” or maybe some heightened sexual content, for no reason.
Desperados is a good example of the latter, but it does manage to be slightly better than other such entries thanks to a good cast who work well together, and the occasional humorous moment that lands.
Wesley (yes, she’s a girl) is a mess of a woman whose life is a series of failed relationships. She’s that prototypical “edgy” girl: Promiscuous and willing to do anything in her quest to find true love because, you know, that’s funny. In the opening, she is on a blind date with Sean (Lamorne Morris, that likable dude from "New Girl"), who instantly shuts her down when he sees just how desperate she is.
Rebounding from that, she meets Wes, a man with whom she shares an immediate attraction. She likes him so much that she even makes him wait a month before inviting him into her bedroom…and then doesn’t hear from him for five days. This leads her (and her two best friends) to get drunk and fire off a profanity-laden email in which no target is off limits…including his dead father.
But would you believe it if I told you that there was a good reason for his radio silence? Of course, right after her friends click “send”, she finally receives the call she’s been waiting for, but receives unexpected news: He was in a serious accident while traveling to Mexico and has been recuperating in a hospital.
Once again desperate (see how much of a recurring theme this is in her life) she forces her two friends to accompany her to Mexico, with the idea that they will delete the incriminating message before he can read it. Of course, things do not go that simply. Also an “of course”: Sean happens to be there at the exact same time. Could she possibly find that the man of her dreams isn’t the one that she originally flew to Mexico for?
The comedy here is rather tired, such as a recurring joke involving a mother who thinks Wes is attracted to her 12-year-old son, and the increasingly extreme lengths Wesley will go in order to save a fledgling relationship. Yet the cast is pleasant enough together that it helps offset some of the failed humor and the obligatory fight between the self-centered Wesley and her friends when they realize their friend is so hung up on men, that she has no time to appreciate them.
There really isn’t any form of sexual chemistry between the two eventual lovebirds - which, let’s be honest, is kind of a drag in a movie where we’re supposed to cheer for them to get together - but they do have a platonic compatibility that makes their scenes feel genuine, in a way. Maybe not the way the filmmakers - or us, as the viewers - were hoping, but it’s a small shred of authenticity in a movie otherwise surrounded by unnecessary excess.
Director: Steven K. Tsuchida Writer(s): Tabi McCartney and Dana Schmalenberg Starring: Christina Milian, Jay Pharaoh, Sinqua Walls and Tymberlee Hill
Wow, I must say that, without a single shred of a doubt, this year has been the best year we’ve ever experienced for “corn-coms'' (there has to be a term I can coin for these B-grade wannabe romance flicks). Not all the movies we’ve seen have been produced this year, but all the ones we’ve seen have had some sort of redeeming quality, and none have outright pissed us off. I’m sure I’ve just jinxed it but hey, if that’s the case, it was a good ride while it lasted.
And, surprisingly, the streak continues with Resort to Love, another Netflix-produced “rom-corn” (See? “r” and “m” together look like an “n”! No takers on that….?) starring Christina Milian, the disgraced ex-singer turned Netflix movie star. Seriously, she must get paid a fortune, because she seems to be in at least three of these every single year; no amount of money would be worth that to anyone who has a shred of dignity left in their careers.
But you know what? For all the pointed criticism I just leveled her way, she’s almost a natural when it comes to starring in these roles. I mean, I guess it could be argued that she’s basically a spin-off of the same character every single time, and standard “acting” doesn’t really apply to this throwaway romantic drivel, but she has a knack for just being inherently likable. And she isn’t afraid to make fun of herself, or to look stupid, the way some former “stars” would, which only adds to her appeal.
In this one, she plays Erica Wilson, a singer whose career is about to take off thanks to her being featured in an album from Che (pronounced “Chee” and who seems to be a spoof of Kanye West), the hottest hip-hop artist in the world. She attends a listening party of the album’s release with her best friend Amber (Tymberlee Hill, who played Phe Phe Reed in the often hilarious reality show parody “The Hotwives of Orlando”). But rather than boosting her career, Che promptly ends it, when he destroys the computer which houses the only copies of the tracks, thanks to a radio DJ leaking a song early.
Her career isn’t the only thing that’s in dire straits: Her fiance, Jay, recently up and left her a month before their planned wedding, completely out of the blue, a traumatic event she is still reeling from.
Depressed, Amber suggests she take a job as a resort singer on a beautiful island. Initially, Erica sees it as a downgrade, a job that’s beneath her. But eventually, she realizes she has no other offers on the table, and reluctantly accepts.
There, she meets the perfect Caleb, who rescues her and another man from drowning after Erica attempted to rescue the man herself. Long story short, in one of those coincidences that only happens in this mindless drivel, he turns out to be Jay’s brother, and is only on the island (that’s thousands of miles away from their home in New York) for Jay’s wedding! That’s right…Erica is going to have to sing for her ex-fiance and his beau, an idea that doesn’t sit too well with her.
Unfortunately for her, Jay’s fiance takes an immediate liking to Erica, which is obviously due to the fact that neither of them have revealed the true nature of their past relationship. Being this close to the woman who’s going to marry her ex doesn’t really help matters for her, but of course because this is a rom-com, all of her pain is played for laughs. Cue a series of hilarious misunderstandings and awkward situations!
Once again, this is another movie this year that doesn’t have a villain, and is all the merrier for it. All of the characters are likable, even Jay somehow, who comes off as more of an immature man-child afraid of commitment than a douchebag who intentionally caused her emotional harm. His jealousy over his brother’s growing closeness with his ex forms much of the movie’s backbone; is he truly in love with his fiance, or does he want to get back with the woman whose heart he destroyed?
But this is, first and foremost, a comedy. Amber provides some good quality laughs as Erica’s best friend, and the movie also gets some comedic mileage out of Claire, Erica’s French-accented boss, who is a stickler for the rules. Granted, much of the humor derives from her ridiculous accent and overacting, but it’s still funny. It’s just a shame that, once the story starts kicking in, both of their characters are relegated to just a couple of minor appearances that don’t pack the same effectiveness of their earlier scenes.
In the end, this is yet another showcase for Christina Milian to sing a few songs in between trying to find the man of her dreams. It’s almost becoming a subgenre unto itself, considering she seems to be in a growing number of them every year, and Resort to Love isn’t going to earn her any new fans. But for those that like these kind of cheesy romance movies, there’s enough here that it shouldn’t lose her any fans, either.
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.
Director: Mike Rohl Writer(s): Robin Bernheim and Megan Metzger Starring: Vanessa Hudgens, Remy Hii, Sam Palladio and Nick Sagar
We slogged through the first two movies in the series, so I suppose we’re morally obliged to continue that tradition with the third (and hopefully final) one…right?
Actually, this trilogy isn’t as bad as some, and manage to be entertaining, for the most part, despite their contrived plotlines and the complete predictability that we’ve come to expect from all cheesy holiday rom-coms. It’s all just more of the same, but I doubt that’s really going to be a warning that’s going to turn most people away; what they want is more of the same.
The third one collects the same cast from the second, with Vanessa Hudgens reprising her roles as Stacy DeNova, Lady Margaret and Fiona, Lady Margaret’s mischievous cousin. If you’ve been keeping up on the series, you’ll remember that Fiona - who made her debut in the second one - was a bad girl who had plans on stealing Lady Margaret’s throne, simply so she could empty the royal house (or whatever it’s called) of all its valuables. Because, you know, that’s a crime that wouldn’t garner global attention.
Probably deciding that they’ve done everything they can with the straight “romance” plots, this one attempts to deliver an “action-packed” adventure: Someone steals a priceless relic, the “Star of Peace”, which was loaned to Lady Margaret from the Vatican for use as a tree topper at Montenaro’s annual Tree Lighting Festivities. Uh oh!
Fiona finds herself performing community service by working as a custodian inside a convent, which is funny because she’s so materialistic that she wouldn’t be caught dead in a place like that (ha ha). Stacy and Margaret decide that they need someone who can “think like a criminal” to get the relic back, and so they turn to Fiona to help them. The head of the orphanage allows her to leave, under the agreement that she is “returned” (like a library book) the day after Christmas.
Of course, romance is still a theme: While Stacy and Lady Margaret’s beaus are already set in stone, this time Fiona gets her own chance to fall in love. The object of her affection is Peter Maxwell, a former Interpol agent with whom the two shared a past relationship. He wants to mend things, but Fiona - who always hides behind a facade of independence - feels like it’s water under the bridge; a waste of time that isn’t worth pursuing. But one thing that they can both agree is worth pursuing, is Hunter Cunard, a rich man with too much time on his hands, whom they deduce stole the Star of Peace simply because he's a bad man.
So, of course, we’re treated to a series of “switches” that have come to define the entire series: Lady Margaret “becomes” Fiona so that she can distract Hunter while the real Fiona can attempt to navigate through the laser-protected room that houses the Star of Peace with Peter. Then, in a surprise, Stacy receives word that Fiona is due to have an immediate hearing about her probation status in the convent, but seeing as how she’s out trying to reclaim the artifact, is unable to attend her own hearing. Does that mean Stacy is going to have to step in as Fiona? No way!
This series is slowly becoming less and less charming with each iteration, and this is definitely is the least entertaining one out of the lot. It has the same "solid" cast (all of whom reprise their roles from the previous two films, if applicable) and it’s nice to see Hudgens get to let loose as Fiona; she would have made an excellent Cruella DeVille. Sure, her character is still over-the-top, and not exactly “evil”, but it’s a much needed reprieve from Stacy and Lady Margaret, who are both too “goody two shoes”.
Now for the question on everyone's minds: Will there be a fourth? God, I hope not.
STRAY OBSERVATIONS
They’re really not even trying now.
The best use for a priceless relic is as a tree topper atop a public Christmas tree.
Kevin is still a complete goof who thankfully has a lesser role in this one.
Also with a lesser role: Well, everyone really. Even Prince Edward seems to be thrown in as an afterthought, as the series seems to be focusing entirely on new things for Vanessa Hudgens to do.
Why couldn’t they bring back the original Olivia?!
The only way I'd be down for a fourth one is if Vanessa Hudgens played every single role.
Director: Mike Rohl Writer(s): Robin Bernheim and Megan Metzger Starring: Vanessa Hudgens (x3), Sam Palladio, Nick Sagar and Mia Lloyd
The Princess Switch 2: Switched Again is the perfect movie for anyone who felt like the first one didn’t have enough Vanessa Hudgens. It also operates under the assumption that the first one was too easy to follow. So, they give us 33% more Vanessa and throw in a triple-switch scenario that is complex by simplicity. I mean, any time you’re dealing with multiple copies of one person, things are bound to get a little confusing.
The first one saw Stacy DeNovo and Lady Margaret swap so that the latter could see what life is like for a “commoner”, and the former could fall in love with a prince. In this one, the plot is even more threadbare: Following the breakup of Lady Margarent and the goofy manchild Kevin, Lady Margaret - who is now about to take over as the “King/Queen” of Montenaro - tempts the idea of getting closer to Antonio Rossi, her chief of staff and clear scumbag. Stacy refuses to allow the fair Lady to fall victim to such a sleazeball, but in preparation of her forthcoming coronation, she simply feels like she doesn’t have enough time to talk to anyone, including the man who she feels is the love of her life.
So Stacy makes a suggestion: Switch bodies again, so that Lady Margaret (who will look like Stacy) can be a “commoner” again, thus giving her ample time to patch things up with that grinning idiot Kevin. Okay, this is already stupid, but there’s another character to add to the proceedings: Lady Margaret’s cousin, Fiona, who also happens to look like her and Stacy. She’s the “evil” one of the family, and arguably the first quantifiable villain in the entire series. She hatches a terrible plan to (forcefully) switch places with Lady Margaret, be crowned queen, and then loot the royal treasury. You know, because that plan is foolproof.
As can be expected following the runaway success of the first one, this ups the preposterousness of the original to ridiculous extremes, which should appeal to fans of the series. Of course, that means it’s even less logical than part one, but logic is never something one watches this type of movie for.
Fiona is an okay villain, who at least allows Hudgens the chance to play a more wild version of these characters. She (and her henchman) are exact copies of the prototypical slapstick villain, trying to ooze evil within the confines of a family-friendly rating; I suppose she succeeds given the odds stacked against her, but it’s all obvious stuff. Supposedly, this character also sticks around for the third one (Lord, have mercy on our souls), as Stacy and Lady Margaret must turn to her to stop some bad guys who want to pull off a royal heist, or something.
There’s really no need to go on any further, because you already know if this is something you would be interested in or not. It does nothing new with the formula - in fact, it somewhat regresses by using more tropes than the first one - but there’s still a mostly likable cast and scenes of almost-enraging illogic, two requirements of the subgenre. Fans of the first should find almost just as many things to like the second time around.
STRAY OBSERVATIONS
It's a shame Alexa Adeosun, who played Olivia in the first one, doesn't make a return here. Instead, her character is played by Mia Lloyd, who is much more annoying.
