The Mortuary Collection (2019)

Director: Ryan Spindell
Writer: Spindell
Starring: Clancy Brown, Caitlin Custer, Christine Kilmer, and Jacob Elordi

Anthologies are one of those things that tend to get a bad rap, but are no worse than any other horror subgenre. Maybe that’s an old-fashioned thought, because there have been quite a few lately that have released to strong acclaim, but overall, they still seem like the red-headed stepchild of the horror world.

As seems to be the case with the “modern” anthology, all of the four story threads are interlinked by one underlying segment about an undertaker whose normal day is interrupted by a young female looking for a job. Or is she? Or is he? Unsurprisingly, nothing is what it seems…but then again, this is a horror movie, so between that fact and the brief synopsis, we pretty much know that going in.

In the “warm up” segment, a sea monster lives in someone’s medicine cabinet. While this one is ultimately very pointless (it’s less than ten minutes in length and has no narrative set up whatsoever), it does end up being the best story of the bunch. Make of that what you will.

The second one concerns a handsome fraternity brother who gets his kicks by sleeping with women. One day he meets a mysterious one who seems to be his match, but it’s obvious that things aren’t right with her. Before you know it, they meet at a party where they hit it off; before you know it they’re getting down and dirty in an upstairs bedroom. She gives him a condom to put on, but in true douchebag fashion, he fakes it—only to discover that was the worst mistake of his life.

So, what happens to our poor lad? Does he get some kind of deadly STD? Turn into some kind of monster, so that his physical appearance matches his inner persona? No, no, you’re still way off; the reality is much, much stupider than anything you could probably come up with, which certainly does set a fitting tone for the remaining stories. I’m sure this story is getting praised for reversing gender stereotypes, and having a womanizing man put in his place, but a bad story is still a bad story, no matter who the perpetrator is.

In the third one, a man who loves his wife is devastated by the mounting debt and frustrations of caring for her after she suffers head trauma in an accident. Looking for an easy way out, he is given some pills by her caring physician, capable of putting her out of her misery. But things don’t quite go as planned for the man, who is trapped with her body in a malfunctioning elevator…

The fourth and final story is different in that it is told not by the mortician, but by the woman visitor; if you didn’t suspect something was up with her by now, the fact she’s telling a story of her own is…well…telling. In it, she recounts the story of a child’s corpse (which, for the squeamish out there, is never shown) and the role she played in it: she was the babysitter the night the child was murdered. Her over-the-top battle with the serial killer is the focus of this one, which ends with a twist that’s as tired as it is rather impractical and uninteresting.

The last one has to deal with our mortician, as we learn his true identity. What? He’s not what he seems to be? What? Neither is she? Wow, could not see either of those things coming from the opening setup. Oh, wait…that was it? That’s the reason we sat through the whole thing? Christ.

The stories are high in production quality but rather low in entertainment value: the focus on laughs rather than chills gives it all a more “lighthearted” feel that mostly just feels like a copout to the material. There’s some rather dark subject matter at play here, such as child murders and assisted suicides, but it’s all handled so sheepishly so that none of it has any impact whatsoever. Seriously, if you have a story in which a child is killed, and my wife is not the slightest bit affected, you have done something completely wrong.

It's not that tackling these issues or obliterating taboos is wrong; in fact, I quite support it (within reason). However, why make them the focus when you’re too soft-hearted to go for the gut? These stories could be just as impactful (which is to say, not at all) without the directors trying to pretend that they’re edgier and more hardcore than they have any interest in actually being; it’s like the schoolyard bully, who can talk a good game, but then gets his ass kicked whenever someone steps up to face him.

I must say though, even as the stories failed to hold my interest, the visuals stepped up; it’s not really flashy in its visual approach, but it just…looks like a legitimate movie. That might sound like a knock to the genre, but let’s be real here, many horror movies are produced as kind of an afterthought; an easy attempt to cash in on the teenaged audiences looking to cuddle up with their boyfriends or girlfriends and have a good scare in the process. For being a movie that went straight to video (or rather, straight to Shudder), this one has all the quality of a big-budget studio movie. It looks like it belongs in a theater; maybe that was the plan before the world took a turn to shit, but regardless, this is a movie that looks like no expense was spared.

The acting is also a strong suit: I didn’t really find myself caring for any of the characters, but that has nothing to do with the actors themselves, who no doubt do as they were told to do. Again, it’s nice to see that the horror genre seems to be gaining momentum with audiences. It used to be that actors would take the roles for easy cash, knowing they could just phone it in, and no one would really care.

Now, though, actors seem to be taking horror movie roles because they want to; that might also have to do with horror’s recent trend of giving female characters more to do than just bare their tits, or scream as loud and high-pitched as they possibly can. Good for them. It’s a change that’s long overdue, and one that should lead to even more positive attention shed on a genre that’s certainly deserving of it.

Now if only the brunt of that attention could be focused on movies that aren’t this one, that would be even better.

OVERALL: 3.5/10

TRAILER

The Cleansing Hour (2019)

Director: Damien LeVeck
Writer(s): LeVeck and Aaron Horwitz, from a story by Horwitz
Starring: Ryan Guzman, Kyle Gallner, Alix Angelis, and Chris Lew Kum Hoi

Maybe it’s a little unfair, but nothing is more disappointing than a movie sucking that you had high hopes for. Of course, critique is supposedly all about being as unbiased as possible, but it’s impossible to go into every single viewing with the same mindset: some movies we know a lot about heading into it, while others we know nothing but the title. Modern trailers are becoming an increasingly big factor—what once seemed to exist to give the viewers a taste of what they could expect, modern trailers seem to either give away too much, or to mislead people into believing they’re getting something they’re not.

It was with excitement we sat down to a viewing of The Cleansing Hour, a Shudder original film. Shudder originals, like anything else, can be hit or miss, but based on the few I’ve seen, I’d say they have a higher success rate than other companies: at the very least, they seem to have their finger on the pulse of their fanbase. Unfortunately, The Cleansing Hour is one of those “misses”—one where I spent almost the entire final hour wishing for it to be over (sure, I could have just stopped it, but where’s the honor in that?) It’s not nearly as clever as it thinks it is, nor is it even remotely funny; it’s just a blending of several horror standards into one equally clichéd monstrosity. It’s kind of like the film equivalent of watching your best friend awkwardly try to hit on some girl you know you could get: you just watch helplessly from afar, cringing at each stupid decision, unable (or unwilling) to help him out because he’s in so deep, nothing could dig him back out. You know full well nothing good will come of it, yet you’re unable to look away.

Ryan Guzman is Max, a preacher who performs exorcisms on a popular online video platform to thousands of adoring fans. His sidekick is Drew, a lifelong friend who, along with his fiancé Lane, run the behind-the-scenes while Max glows in the spotlight. It doesn’t take long to see why he’s so popular, as he looks closer to a supermodel than a man of the cloth; it’s not surprising to learn that he’s a hit with the ladies. It also doesn’t take much to see why Lanie is quitting the show, and urging her soon-to-be-husband to do the same; he seems to be too caught up in himself, and his own affairs, to consider anyone else. Oh, and he’s also a fraud, something that is reiterated to us time and time again, whether he’s setting up another elaborately staged exorcism, or sleeping with one of the women following him around (so much for a vow of celibacy, eh?)

Anyway, as you can also tell from the brief synopsis, things go from bad to gradually worse: the actor in tonight’s exorcism is a no-call no-show (actually attacked in an alley by a monster, I guess?), leaving the duo scrambling to find a replacement. And that replacement is a reluctant Lanie, who has no interest in performing in front of the camera on her last day. Alas, true love prevails, as her fiancé coaxes her into doing it.

But things quickly go off the rails as Lane is actually possessed by a demon, who holds the duo captive, and forces them to admit their deepest secrets if they want to make it out alive. It all leads up to a ridiculous CGI confrontation with an evil entity hellbent on destroying the duo, all in the name of Satan!

If that sounds ridiculous, that’s because it is. If that sounds good, well then I’m sorry for misrepresenting it.

I guess we have to give director Damien LeVeck credit for ambition: the story spans several countries and tries to make social statements about everything from televangelists to social media stars; the issue is, the targets are already so well-known and overdone, that it all feels tired right out of the gates. Pair that up with the standard exorcism staples (telekinesis, vomiting, foul mouth, infinite knowledge…at least there’s no head spinning), and you have a movie that tries to deliver way more than it comfortably can. Even the “admit all your sins” approach the demon takes feels like a stale retread of countless other films; it botches itself even further by offering no real revelations worth a damn, instead making it all feel like the pointless waste of time that it is. Wow, so he’s a fraud? We already know that from reading the basic plot outline included in the marketing materials, or by watching the trailer. There’s also some muck dredged up about a past relationship that is supposed to be a bombshell revelation—but that merely comes across as a slight fizzle.

The one area where Cleansing Hour excels are in the performances. Not all of them are good, but the main cast deliver some solid chops that feel out of place here, given the oftentimes amateurish material.  Alix Angelis as Lane steals the show—she’s required to strike a balance between aggressor and victim, and manages to do so without looking stupid. That’s a pretty big feat. Ditto that for Kyle Gallner as Drew, Lane’s boyfriend, who is forced to watch helplessly from the sidelines as the unfortunate situation plays out right in front of his very eyes.

It’s a feeling the viewer knows all too well.

OVERALL RATING: 4/10

TRAILER

Ghost Stories (2017)

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

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

...which ended up being a good thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATING: 8/10

TRAILER

Haunt (2019)

Directors: Scott Beck and Bryan Woods
Writers: Beck and Woods
Starring: Katie Stevens, Will Brittain, Lauryn Alisa McClain, and Andrew Lewis Caldwell

Stop me if you've heard this one before: Six people looking for an adventure stumble upon a mysterious haunted house, where they quickly learn that the sinister forces inside are interested in much more than merely scaring the hapless collection of good-looking visitors...

It's an idea that's been done millions of times before, and that will no doubt be done a million times more. But the main frustration with Haunt is that, while it does build up an unnerving atmosphere and has some effectively “icky” kills, it doesn't really aim to be anything more than that. Which is a shame, because underneath its predictability is a truly classic film waiting to be born.

Katie Stevens is Harper, a young woman who is trying to get out of an abusive relationship with her controlling boyfriend. In order to help take her mind off things, she reluctantly agrees to hang out with some friends—and in the process, of course, meets Nathan, an attractive, athletic man who quickly takes a liking to the freshly single lady.

The group head off to find a haunted house, and instead stumble on one when Harper suddenly feels like she is being stalked by her boyfriend. As they sit off to the side of a dark road in their old van, a “Haunted House” sign suddenly lights up, and the group has very little qualms about entering an otherwise unpromoted haunt. From there, the red flags continue to pile up: the bizarre man at the gate who requires no money; the seemingly vicious torture of another soul unlucky enough to wander in; the bloodcurdling screams heard off in the distance; but these are just explained away as completely normal events for a random haunted house off the side of a mostly abandoned road that no one knows about.

I think we all know where this is headed: the creepy masked “characters” in the haunted house are more than they seem, and the characters get picked off one by one in gruesome ways. Can anyone put a stop to the bloodbath? Or will all of them meet their end inside the abandoned building?

The synopsis itself reveals the underlying problem: it's all too familiar. For a film that seems hellbent on throwing up some shocking violence and maintaining a tense feeling of unease—two things it does rather well—there's just too much straightforward, linear storytelling to truly elevate it into the higher echelons of the subgenre. It's pretty obvious from the get-go who's going to survive and who's going to die, and the filmmakers show no real intention of subverting that tired formula. Most of the side characters are still stupid caricatures who do stupid things to put themselves further in harm's way, making the jobs of these murderers way easier than it should be. Even during the meandering finale—which goes on about ten minutes too long—when the audience is no doubt expecting one final, decimating twist to justify the elongated length, we basically just end up with the ending we already had ten minutes prior, with nothing shocking or necessary details added.

And can we stop with the trend of horror movies half-heartedly trying to pull on heartstrings? In this case, we not only have Harper dealing with an abusive boyfriend, but also a backstory involving an abusive father that's never resolved. There's no doubt that horror movies can effectively deal with heartrending issues (see The Orphanage for a perfect example, and to a lesser extent, The Babadook), but it takes complete commitment from the creators for that to work. Here, Harper's troubles feel thrown in more as an afterthought, as a cheap way to give her character more dimensionality, while the lack of resolution is ultimately a slap in the face to the viewer.

That's not to say at all that it's a bad film—in fact, I would definitely say it's still above average for what it is. The acting really carries it, with no one turning in a poor performance, while Katie Stevens absolutely steals the show as Harper. It's certainly not her fault the floundering backstories fail to resonate with the viewer, because she does her part to sell them: she cries, cowers, screams, or acts confident, all to the whims of the script, and with a clear commitment to the material that's sometimes missing behind the scenes. She better watch it though: her 2019 output includes two horror films (this, along with Polaroid), which just might pigeonhole her into the genre; she's more deserving of greater chances than that.

The effects work is also excellent: although limited to quick shots, the film's use of practical effects gives the death scenes much stronger impact than any amount of computer generated imagery could provide. The kills really help to carry the tense mood along, even as the characters seem to get dumber and dumber, setting themselves up for easy—though often predictable, as is par for the course—demises.

In other words, Haunt works when it's doing what the title implies, but falls off the rails in the fleeting moments when it feels like it has more that it wants to say. This is a good movie full of “what ifs” that will leave you pondering just how much better it could have been.

OVERALL: 6/10

LAUGHABLE LIFETIME: Identity Theft of a Cheerleader (2019)

Director: Christie Will Wolf
Writer(s): Barbara Kymlicka
Starring: Maiara Walsh, Karis Cameron, Jesse Irving and Naika Toussaint

Now here we go! Just when it seemed Lifetime movies were starting to get better, we have a nice “throwback” feature to ground us back in reality; this is a perfect example of what the channel does best: make movies that simply just shouldn’t exist.

Identity Theft of a Cheerleader follows Vicky Patterson, who, as a teenager, failed to make the cheerleading squad. Flash forward ten years. She now works at what appears to be a mix between a Goodwill and a Sam’s Club (it’s even called something along the lines of “Big Box Store”) which, as we all know, is a way to show that she is “unmotivated” and “unsuccessful” in a movie world (because no one can be successful or happy being anything less than a six-figure salaried exec), and lives with her equally unmotivated, hideously creepy boyfriend, who loses money gambling for a living.

Through what can only be described as “fate”, she finds the dropped high school ID card of a fellow co-worker--who just so happens to be a cheerleader. She uses this moment of inspiration to…um…go back to high school, thus gaining a second chance to make the cheerleading squad. At thirty years old. Because that’s where she thinks her life went wrong. No, seriously…that’s the basic plot. And she’s not above resorting to dirty tactics, like using cooking oil to make the captain fall off the top set of bleachers (?), to see her ultimate plan through.

But it’s not just about the cheers—no, she wants the full experience of everything she feels she was deprived of, from wallowing in popularity, to being the leader of the squad, to sleeping with the popular jock. Which she does, despite the fact that the jock’s best friend, Heather, is the one that took an initial liking to Vicky and urged her to try out for cheer in the first place. And despite the fact there’s clearly sparks between the jock and Heather, even though neither one have ever discussed their mutual attraction to one another, as if each one is waiting for the other to make the first move.

Despite its brilliantly awful plot, ID Theft is done in by one of the most egregious of offenses possible in media: It has absolutely zero likable main characters. Heather is the best of the bunch, but she’s just too goodie two-shoes (and stupid) to rally behind. For example, there’s a scene where her, a friend, and Vicky are all getting ready to attend a party. While the other two girls are getting ready, Vicky sneaks off and opens a locked liquor cabinet, drinking half a bottle of vodka. When the parents come home, they automatically accuse Heather of doing it—and she never once suspects Vicky, even though she was the only one that logistically could have done it. And are we really supposed to get upset that Vicky slept with Heather’s non-man, since she is too much of a pussy to go and tell him how she feels? Sorry, but while that’s definitely a slimy and shady thing to do to a supposed friend, he’s technically fair game, and at least Vicky has the balls to go after what she wants…even if it is in a legal gray area where she’s, you know, not only not in high school, but almost twice as old as he thinks she is.

Meanwhile, Vicky’s current boyfriend is grade A sleazeball, and I’m not really sure why his character exists, or even what we’re supposed to think of him. He’s clueless, lazy and apathetic (at one point even using her own money to buy her a birthday gift), but most of the same things could also be said for Vicky, making it unclear whose “side” we’re supposed to be on. (A perfect scene that encapsulates this is when Vicky, freshly laid-off from her job and now attending high school, urges her good-for-nothing boyfriend to do something “productive”.)

His sole shining moment is the (brilliant) scene where he finally starts catching wind that something isn’t quite right with his girlfriend, leading to the obligatory scene where he follows her to see where she’s actually going, when she’s pretending to be at work. There’s just something perfectly hysterical in this sequence when, much to his surprise, she’s not daylighting as a high-end escort, or sleeping with drug dealers to get her fix of life-ruining drugs, or secretly having an affair with a married man, or any of the other sordid, low-grade hijinx you would typically expect to find in a Lifetime drama: Instead, she’s pulling into high school in a cheerleading outfit and pecking her high school boyfriend on the lips.

Unsurprisingly, there’s a murder in there somewhere, and of course, her true identity is finally discovered in the end; we even discover the “reasoning” behind her high school obsession, and although it’s a pretty well-worn trope (hint: it involves her mother!) I must admit it’s kind of (genuinely) sad when you think about it…but mostly it’s still just weird and pathetic, especially given the ridiculous lengths she goes to accomplish her delusional dream.

Identity Theft succeeds in being entertaining drivel, but despite a couple moments of unintentional brilliance, it doesn’t come anywhere close to capitalizing on the perfect absurdity of its title. Though I suppose with a title so succinct, how could it?

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• “But you couldn’t make Dad stay,” Vicky to her mom after she goes on and on about herself, and how successful she’s been in life; a truly biting, unexpected zinger.
• If, for whatever reason, you ever find yourself wanting to go back to high school, enrolling is as easy as filling out a request online, then telling the superintendent that you forgot your photo identification.
• Want to look ten years younger? Just cut your hair and give yourself bangs.
• It’s much easier to fit in with high schoolers as a thirty year old, when all the other high schoolers around you are played by people in their mid-20s.
• For being a movie about cheerleading, there are very few actual cheers.
• You know the writers are trying too hard to make a character likable if they are so nice, they can’t even bring themselves to badmouth their teachers.
• Movies always seem to have non-copyright infringing names for their fake social media sites and search engines, and this one delivers two classics: Spyder Finder, and Face Bubble. Who would ever sign up to a social media site named Face Bubble?!
• One of the best fall-down funny lines in Lifetime movie history: “What, you’re a teenager now?!” as delivered with incredulity by Vicky’s boyfriend after catching her secretly going back to high school.
• One of the scenes that eventually lead to Vicky’s downfall—of all things—is mispronouncing the word “meme”, which no one under the age of 60 has ever done.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER