I think I said the last time I reviewed a movie that had a plot based on rules for finding the perfect man that I would rather have hernia surgery again capped off with a catheter put in me again. While this does have Candace Cameron Bure in it, it’s still way better than Just The Way You Are. I guess this movie falls in between that one and Dater’s Handbook.
I finally got to it, Michelle! I certainly won’t be able to tear into this film the way she did, but I may have seen some of the same things.
Hmm…have no idea why that came to mind.
The movie begins as Paige Summerlind (Candace Cameron Bure) is arriving at LAX to fly out to New York to be with her fiancee. But first we find out that Paige writes for Radiant Bride magazine.
I was so convinced that shot was from Before You Say ‘I Do’, but looking at promo pics and the film itself turned up no results. I’m sorry.
Anyways, you see those hands? Those belong to a very smart lady. You see, Paige spotted her magazine being held by this lady, and immediately tried to push it on her. She even gave her the money to pay for the magazine.
The lady put the magazine back and pocketed the money. I love her!
Now we are introduced to Frank (David Lewis) and Maxine (Sarah Strange). You know it never fails. No matter how many screenshots I take throughout the movie, I will always end up with the worst possible shot, but it will be the one I need. Oh, and on this film, I took 2,738 screenshots.
Next we are introduced to Dylan played by Paul Greene who I’ve seen play a nurse, event planner, and now a bartender. Well, he might own the bar. I’m not sure. He looks as jazzed to see A Christmas Melody as he is flying home to New York after a four year absence. According to his friend, “the statute of limitations for licking the wounds of a broken heart expired a long time ago.” So he’s off to LAX.
Now Paige makes a bit of a scene at the check-in counter. She thought she was going to have an aisle seat, but she’s going to get stuck with a window seat. Also, she can only bring two things aboard the plane. She checks one of her bags because she must bring her “vision board” onto the plane with her.
So her dream wedding is the current cover of her magazine, and there’s her boyfriend Jack played by…
who is preparing for his role as the wrong guy named Reed in Appetite For Love.
We now cut to Doctor Zhivago 3D…
before cutting inside to meet Jack, then it’s back to the plane all these people are on.
Jack and Paige have to sit next to each other cause Hallmark. He nearly doubles over laughing about her magazine. She defends her “100 proven ways to find your perfect mate.”
Sometimes you do get the right screenshot. I would now put the screenshot of the ridiculous looking eye mask they put her in for the following shots, but let’s move on.
Of course a storm front forces the plane to set down in Buffalo, New York. Now they wait outside for a shuttle.
I’m pretty sure what they did here was tint it blue and CGI in foreground snow. The shuttle takes them to the Buffalo Airport Hotel, which from the exterior made me think of the Overlook Hotel from The Shining (1980). They end up with adjoining rooms again because Hallmark.
Now dialog that left me scratching my head happens. I’ll just say I nearly looked like this when I heard it.
After that, we cut back to house to see that this shot was probably done by a different person.
I think you know how it plays out for Paige and Dylan at this point. They spend more time together. Paige keeps calling Jack. We get another shot of a different house.
They kiss under a sign that says Mistletoe Junction. They wind up at the O Tannenbaum Inn. We see that they simply expanded the black region in the middle of the cellphone screen to cutoff the provider, which in turn cutoff Decline and Accept under those buttons.
She ends up running away from Dylan to Jack. She finds out she doesn’t want to marry Jack. Dylan reunites with his family. They end up together. Blah, blah, blah. Nothing you haven’t seen before, and nothing interesting either.
I want to call special attention to the other plot line running while this is going on. Remember Maxine and Frank? They are the best part of this movie in my opinion. Although, it was a little weird at first. I thought they were just a lovable bickering married couple, but by the time we got to the inn, I realized they were having trouble.
They weren’t even supposed to be sleeping in the same room. Even when they do, they push themselves to the opposite sides of the bed. However, they eventually come around in the end. There’s nothing fancy or overly dramatic about it. They just acknowledge that neither of them are very happy pretending to be bitter at each other. The charade is over, and they go into a house together holding hands having arrived at their destination plotwise and completing their character arcs.
So why did we even need the whole Paige and Dylan storyline? I’m not a big fan of Candace Cameron Bure. She’s okay in the Aurora Teagarden movies cause it’s fun to watch her run around like a crazy person in those films. I do kind of like what I’ve seen Paul Greene do so far. However, I’ve seen Hallmark do the mature couple story, and do it well. I’m thinking Lead With Your Heart here. I think David Lewis and Sarah Strange could have carried this film all by themselves as a seemingly lovable bickering couple who are actually in trouble, but discover they seemed lovable because they do still love each other. If they had fleshed that out to a complete film, then I could have enjoyed this a lot more. As it is, don’t bother.
Oh, and Hallmark, please give Ron Oliver a budget next time. This house thing was ridiculous.
Not to mention the CGI’d in Christmas decorations at the beginning of the film, and other things.
Here’s the songs since they did include them in the credits:
Well, this one should be short because there really isn’t much to say about these movies other than don’t watch any of them. At least none of them are South Korean this time!
A Touch of Grey (2009, dir. Sandra Feldman & Ian Mah) –
Well, at least the trailer is honest. It shows you four women whining in a room, and that’s exactly what you get. I love how there’s a review on IMDb that calls it a post-Sex and the City film. Wow! That’s high praise there. Not really. I call it what happens when you have four good actresses and no budget to actually film outside of a hotel room so the audience is constantly left wondering why these four women are doing absolutely nothing but ruminating about their lousy lives.
I believe they leave twice and we never see it, but just see them come back. I remember the first leading to the especially annoying girl getting duct taped to a chair for what they say was a “penis foot wrestle.”
The second time I think the annoying girl just leaves for a while before coming back. If you want to hear middle-aged women waste getting together for the first time in a long time instead of actually going out and doing things together, then here you go. Oh, and none of their endless rambling causes any of them to really change either. They are the same as when they arrived.
I particularly enjoyed the part when they bitch about women’s lib. Hey geniuses! Go home, put your foot down, and tell your husband the household duties get divided or you leave. I know it isn’t easy, but I don’t recall this even coming up as a solution. In fact, the lady who put this thing together even rolls over and takes it via a cellphone call at the end of the movie. They really just go on and on ruminating over their problems instead of actually talking about solutions. As I already said, they also don’t bother to go anywhere to help clear their heads so they only get dumber as time goes on. And no, this is not like Jeanne Dielman (1975) where there is a point to all the tedium and boredom so that we understand the final action of the movie. In the case of this movie, that would be the main lady agreeing to pick up groceries on her way home.
It’s not awful, but it really felt like a waste of my time. It’s for people who want to watch four women in a room drink, yack, and complain about taking it up the ass from their husbands, but not actually accomplishing anything in the end.
I’m sorry if I’m especially harsh on this movie, but I’m really sick of these cheap movies that think getting actors in a room, maybe knowing how to shoot them, and having them talk at length equals something meaningful and insightful.
Oh, and for that one person who might want to leave this comment. I am well aware that women tend to bond by sharing secrets/talking and men tend to bond by doing things together. That fact doesn’t make this movie any better.
Edit: Yes, I am aware one of the ladies left her husband and still isn’t happy. This making it seem like there is no way out doesn’t make any difference to the film.
Truth or Dare (1994, dir. François Ozon) – I guess cause the other movie had adults sitting around drinking and doing nothing, then Amazon thought I would want to watch a really short film about some kids playing truth or dare. Basically a few kids play truth or dare and the game leads towards sexual things till all of sudden I guess one of them said a dare that was especially noteworthy cause one of them looks into the camera and the movie ends. Unless you are already a fan of the director who has gone on to do numerous feature films such as Swimming Pool (2003), then don’t bother with this.
57,000 Kilometers Between Us (2008, dir. Delphine Kreuter) – Since Truth or Dare looked like an episode of The Kids Of Degrassi Street, but in French and Amazon Prime apparently knew I am transgender, it recommended this piece of French arthouse garbage that is shot like it belongs on public access television in the late 1970s/earlier 1980s with transgender actress Stéphanie Michelini playing a trans woman. It was awful.
Here is the plot. Sort of. The movie is based on the title. The distance created by technology although the filmmakers apparently couldn’t afford to use technology that didn’t make this thing look 35+ years old (or a bad Dogme 95 film). Some girl and a kid in a hospital play an MMORPG. A father likes to broadcast everything that goes on in his home with his wife and family on the Internet. One of the kids in here is estranged from her “father” that is played by Stéphanie Michelini as Nicole. That’s it! The movie frantically jumps around this stuff and never amounts to anything.
I love the reviews on IMDb for this one. One person really saw way more than there is while the other person was actually at the preimere where apparently 80% of the audience got up and left before the lights came up even though the director was their for a Q & A.
Don’t waste your time on this one.
Login or Log In (2013, dir. Ákos Barnóczky) – Yep, just like last time, we end with a Hungarian film. I have very little idea what was going on with this film. It’s all told via webcam chats. There are a few times when you can see both sides at the same time, but it largely cuts back and forth of single shots of the actors. That is if there is even someone there to talk to. I believe sometimes they are just leaving a video message for the other person, but it wasn’t clear to me.
The movie begins with a woman logging into her estranged or ex-husbands video dating account to find a woman with a mask on. This somehow then leads her to find a guy I just refer to as Hungarian Christian Bale.
I don’t know why, but he agrees to help her I guess track down who this woman is. There’s something tying them together and two other people are trying to manipulate both of them. I not only lost the plot, but any interest in this movie quickly. It’s apparently based on Dangerous Liaisons, which I haven’t seen or read. However, the plot summary on IMDb makes it clear it’s just more period piece backstabbing garbage, which is how this movie came across to me.
If you do like Dangerous Liaisons and can put up with the webcam style of storytelling here, then maybe see it. I can’t recommend it to anyone else unless you really want to see Hungarian Bale actually talk and move. This movie isn’t even in IMDb as I write this post. I submitted it though so it will show up eventually.
——————
Here’s hoping I will be able to recommend at least one of the next four movies in what appears to be a never ending journey. I am up to 54 films now.
I didn’t want to see another movie starring Autumn Reeser right now. I didn’t want to see another movie written by Nancey Silvers right now. However, I haven’t done a Ron Oliver movie in awhile, and he has been nice to me in the past. So let’s talk about I Do, I Do, I Do.
The movie opens up and we meet Jaclyn Palmer (Autumn Reeser) on the right, her sister Kate (Ali Liebert), and Kate’s camera. This time Hallmark is more subtle with the camera. No obvious Nikon camera strap. Also, it’s a Canon camera anyways. Just thought I would point that out for long time Hallmark fans who remember the Nikon product placement scenes from movies like For The Love Of Grace. Oh, and you can easily miss that Kate is her sister. I’m pretty sure it doesn’t tell you till later. Up till then my Dad and I thought they were just old friends. Even the credits of this movie don’t tell you.
Then probably the weirdest way I’ve seen the wrong guy introduced in a Hallmark movie happens. Jaclyn and Kate are in front of a hospital. An ambulance pulls up, someone is wheeled out of the back of it. Then up springs Dr. Peter Lorenzo (Antonio Cupo) from the gurney.
He comes over and proposes to Jaclyn while someone films them. I’m quite sure he arranged to have someone film it. At the very least it winds up on sort of YouTube.
That’s a lot of views! Obviously Dr. Peter Lorenzo is the PewDewPie of doctors. It goes without saying that she accepts his proposal. Now she’s off to some hotel in the woods next to a lake that’s probably in other Hallmark movies. After Autumn does her best shocked look as she pulls up to see a big sign that says “Jaclyn & Peter Forever”, she is greeted by his parents. It’s always a good sign when your mother-in-law to be says this to you.
Jaclyn is introduced to more craziness such as the “Bridal Cabin” and the wedding dress her soon to be Mom wants her to wear. Seeing as Jaclyn doesn’t like her wedding dress and she arrived in a car, she of course proceeds to get on a bike to ride through the woods to get to town.
You got me! My only guess is that since her husband is crazy about health and forces that on Jaclyn too, that she felt she had to use a bike instead of a car. Why she has to go through the woods, I have no idea. Regardless, as she is traveling through the woods she runs into Peter’s brother Max played by Shawn Roberts.
You know, Dexter Durant from Recipe For Love, or Dean if you are a fan of Degrassi: TNG. Since Jaclyn’s sister mentioned earlier that she wishes the two of them could throw caution to the wind like when they were younger, Max jumps off a ledge into the water. You can think of Max as basically the complete opposite of his brother. Oh, and they kiss for reasons. It kind of comes out of nowhere. Let’s move this along now by leaping over some scenes to get to the good stuff.
The next big thing that happens is that Jaclyn wakes up the next day. That day happens to be Valentine’s Day when her wedding is because who gets married on Groundhog Day? Yes, this is one of those movies. People burst into her room to make her up for Peter’s mother’s dream wedding. I think this shot sums up how Jaclyn feels about this.
You may notice that there is a wipe transition in progress in that shot. Director Ron Oliver uses them a bunch in this movie to good effect. George Lucas used them in Star Wars. It’s a good way to maintain a quick pace by giving you no time to mourn the loss of what was onscreen. It just picks you up from one scene and throws you into the next one. He also matches this with how he progressively shortens the days. Groundhog Day (1993) and the Groundhog Day episode of Stargate-SG1 did this too.
The marriage happens, but it’s a little rocky including wine getting spilled on her. That’s when back at the Bridal Cabin, Jaclyn wishes for a do-over, and her proposal video rolls over to 1,000,000 views.
Poor Ron Oliver! His video in upper right hand corner only has 567,983 views. At first I thought they would repeat that the way the clock would turn over in Groundhog Day, but it doesn’t. The equivalent here is the phone next to her bed, which rings with a wake up call.
This time she shows up with heavy eyeshadow and blush. I guess she is trying to maybe get him to not want to marry her. No such luck.
On the next repeat she starts to flip out. I love that they even bring up the possibility that she’s on drugs.
The doctor thinks she might have cold feet. She keeps telling him she’s living the same day over and over. So of course the doctor says he is going to get her tested for drugs. To get away from crazy town, Jaclyn flees with Max to the main set of the movie.
Remember the whole learning how to play the piano thing from Groundhog Day? That’s the kind of things that start to happen as the repeats get shorter and shorter. The first thing is to overcome her fear of the water. She didn’t used to be afraid of the water, but Peter kind of got her scared of taking any risks. Apparently, this included going into the water for her. So over the course of several loops Max takes her further and further into the water.
Once that is done, the next thing on the roster is to finally learning how to dance. Again, this repeats over several days. I have to give credit to whoever was responsible for the continuity on this film for these scenes. Take a look.
Those are from two loops that follow each other. Note that his outfit doesn’t change. It wouldn’t because since he isn’t aware of the time loop, he would be always wearing the same thing. However, since she is aware of the time loop, she wears something different. It’s a nice little detail that also helps to make sure we know another loop has gone by without having to cutaway from the beach.
With that done, learning Italian is next for Jaclyn. The reason for this is that earlier a member of Peter’s family came up to her and just assumed that Max and her were together. However, the whole conversation was in Italian and they lie to her about what she said. She spends several loops learning Italian.
Next is picking out a wedding dress she likes. She even has the wedding she seems to like, but of course Max isn’t convinced. Obviously Max is lord of time because she wakes up once again.
After spending more time with Max, we get the sort of YouTube thing at the start of another time loop.
I guess we know which one of the producers on this movie was the most important seeing as Kevin Leeson’s Seagull video has 996,876 views over Dan Paulson’s 36,995 views. Although, the production coordinator Alison Stephen tops them all with her 2.9 million views.
Anyways, this is when Jaclyn finally decides to stop the loop by saying that she doesn’t want to marry him. Just like in Bridal Wave, it turns out getting married wasn’t really something either of them wanted to do. She seemed to have been swept off her feet and he was kind of under pressure from his Mom. Even Dad chimes in to tell Mom to sit down here. When somebody tells you to sit down with these eyes…
then you sit down.
She and Max fall asleep at the beach. The time loop breaks, and they wake up together. After jumping in the water, they go and get married.
My final thought on this one is that it comes in third out of the four Groundhog Day movies/TV episodes I’ve seen. The first two are Groundhog Day and the Stargate SG-1 episode. However, number four, called Pete’s Christmas, is a huge drop off from this one. I really didn’t like that film. So check out the Stargate SG-1 episode called Window of Opportunity, and this one too. I recommend it.
Update: I don’t like to change my old reviews because good or bad, they reflect where I was at the time. However, since writing this review, I have been assured by Sean Paul Murphy who wrote and edited the film, that it was not directed by David A.R. White. He has told me that it is a pseudonym, but just not for White. It was a DGA issue. I’m going to take his word for it unless something else comes up, in which case I will obviously update this again.
You may have noticed that I credit this film as being directed by David A.R. White instead of Bobby Smyth as it is listed on IMDb. I have looked at numerous reviews and I can’t find anyone else that seems to have noticed this is an obvious pseudonym for David A.R. White. Let me explain.
David A.R. White is credited as directing the first Encounter movie. Do you really think he would entrust the sequel to someone who has absolutely no other credits to their name?
Of course he wouldn’t. He would helm it himself, or maybe co-direct it the same way he did with Me Again (2012).
The next bit is the name itself. The last name Smyth sure sounded familiar to me. It should sound familiar if you are a Baptist or have studied religion. John Smyth was one of the founders of the Baptists churches. He is also particularly noted for reconciling with the Mennonites near the end of his life.
According to the bio for David A.R. White, written by his own company Pure Flix Entertainment on IMDb, he grew up in a small Mennonite farming community outside of Dodge City, Kansas. Also, Smyth is a variation on Smith. The infamous pseudonym used over the years by many people is Alan Smithee.
The Bobby part is probably two-fold. First, it’s not Alan, which would be way too obvious. Second, the real star of this movie is an actor named Robert Miano. Miano has been in numerous Pure Flix films. That’s most likely where he got Bobby from.
Another thing takes us back to the movie Me Again. In that film, Bruce McGill plays a character named Big Earl. Big Earl is an anagram for Gabriel. As in the archangel Gabriel. So this kind of thing is in David A.R. White’s wheelhouse.
Finally, the movie has the same problems as The Encounter as well as another David A.R. White film called Redeemed (2014). It has his signature on this movie, which is especially noticeable because The Encounter and this film had different cinematographers. To me that says the director told them to shoot it this way, which means a common director between the two movies. There are also other little things as well. Unless someone actually called Bobby Smyth turns up, then it’s a pseudonym for who I can only conclude must have been White himself.
With that out of the way, let’s talk about the film.
Before giving us the title card, the movie gives us a little background information on the 2004 tsunami. This is another reason I’m sure it’s a pseudonym. The Mennonite’s have a thing called the Mennonite Central Committee. They responded to the tsunami by sending millions of dollars in aid. That tsunami is sort of a thing in the movie. Kind of. Just a minor plot point, but important enough that it gets a couple of title cards at the start.
Now we have to explain a little more. This is a bit like a Godfrey Ho movie. There is a Movie A and a Movie B that are spliced together. Not clumsily like Ho would do, but it is enough that it really is appropriate to discuss them as if they are two separate films.
Movie A:
Movie A opens up with DEA Agent Rik Caperna (David A.R. White) showing up in Thailand 7 years after the tsunami hit the region. He is itching to take down a drug kingpin named Bruno Mingarelli (Robert Miano).
Luckily, he spots him just as he pulls up in his car and Rik calls his boss. Since Bruno isn’t actually holding any suitcases or anything that could be holding drugs, his boss says to hold back. Rik doesn’t like that at all. He is given orders to stay in his car, which is exactly why he leaves his car to follow Bruno.
Now one of the parts that sort of connects the two stories together happens.
Jesus, played by Bruce Marchiano, appears, looks at Bruno, then disappears. To be honest, it’s a little weird. It’s something you would expect a slasher movie character to do before he finally gets down to the killing. Of course, that is exactly what Jesus is doing here except he is making these brief appearances to allude that Movie B is eventually going to happen.
Bruno has a bodyguard of sorts named Charlie Doles played by Gary Daniels.
Now we get a strange flashback that isn’t clear it’s a flashback. It’s of a little girl that we will find out later is, or represents, Rik’s sister who died when he was a kid because of drugs. It’s this lousy indication of when something is real or a flashback that was also present in Redeemed, which David A.R. White is explicitly credited as having directed.
Next we meet Bruno’s boss, and guess who?
It’s Kass Connors here to make barely an appearance just to let you know the Devil is around here somewhere.
Bruno is here to tell him that this will be his last shipment, but soon Rik is spotted outside, and the chase is on.
These scenes are actually shot reasonably well. Almost as if White is familiar with these kinds of movies so he had an idea of how to shoot these properly. These action oriented outdoor scenes are not a part of Movie B, and weren’t in the first film. Movie B and the first film are all close quarters dialogue heavy films. In other words, films like My Dinner With Andre (1981), Persona (1966), and the dialogue heavy works of Eric Rohmer. Or to put it even simpler, they are foreign films, but shot like they were done by someone who isn’t exactly familiar with those kinds of movies.
Getting back to the story of Movie A now, Rik catches up with Bruno and takes him into custody. One problem, he actually has no evidence whatsoever. As a result, the police show up and let Bruno go. Then Rik flips out, attacks the cops, and is taken into custody himself.
Now we go to meet Bruno’s drug addicted wife Mimi Mingarelli (Ammy Chanicha). Think of her as the nice girl who picked up the runaway from the first movie, except she’s a drug addict in this one.
Now we cut back to Rik in jail, and hey Rik!
Jesus, Man!
Look, if David wasn’t going to put in that priceless one-liner somewhere, than I had too. If you don’t know what that’s from, then here’s The Cinema Snob review of Second Glance (1992), which David A.R. White was in.
Now what you expect happens. By that, I mean Rik is let out of jail by his boss, and immediately goes to see the Devil.
After passing him a copy of the script for God’s Not Dead (2014), the Devil also gives him a gun and tells him to go after Bruno with his blessing.
I have no idea how he knew exactly where the Devil was. One minute he’s in jail being told he’s suspended by his boss, then he’s suddenly walking into the conveniently lit with red hallway to the room where the Devil is waiting.
Now the Devil places a call to Charlie telling him to let Rik kill Bruno, then to kill Rik.
Oh, and Jesus is out there in the ocean standing on the water. You know, as you do. Actually, I am glad they put some of these things in after the first film. I mean you have a character that is literally supposed to be Jesus. Let the man do his thing.
Rik catches up with Charlie, Bruno, and Mimi. He engages in a gun battle, but is taken hostage. Rik eventually breaks free, and Bruno is killed in the crossfire between Rik and Charlie.
Rik chases down Charlie and fights him. Rik nearly drowns Charlie to death, but decides not to, and instead bring him in properly so he can be tried for his crimes.
The last we see of Rik is him sitting on a beach being told by his boss that Bruno kept good records so they are going to be busy for a long time.
Movie A has come to an end. Time for Movie B!
Movie B:
Movie B opens up in 2004 with a black couple and their son Timothy (Steven Clarke). They are kind of like the black couple from the first one in that they are married, black, and the wife will end up wanting a divorce, but that’s really all they have in common with them. The wife wanting a divorce was ambiguous and kind of offensive in the first film. Here, we completely understand. She (Shelley Robertson) has every reason for wanting out of this situation the husband (Rif Hutton) has dug himself into and doesn’t appear to be emerging from anytime soon no matter what she does. The couple runs a resort in Thailand. Now Dad goes to sit down and talk with his son.
His son spent 4 years in pre-med, then decided to abandon it to become what they call a “doctor of divinity”. It’s kind of a wishy washy honorary theology type degree. The point is, he wants to help people by actually being a Christian and what they are supposed to embody. The father is a little perplexed as I would be myself. That is a lot of work to be tossed aside. Also, being a real medical doctor doesn’t preclude doing what he wants to do. In fact, he could do even more good being an MD that is willing to do things like Doctors Without Borders and Christian type aid programs. However, of course it’s his decision to make. His father seems to respect it even if he doesn’t completely understand it. Sadly, the son is killed by a 24 style countdown and a title card.
Next we see the father 7 years later ruminating about his son’s death. He also talks to him like he’s there, which he is because this is a Christian movie.
You can tell by the stink eye his son is giving him that he isn’t too happy with his Dad’s plan here. Neither is his wife happy with his inability to move on instead of not only digging a hole so deep that he’ll never get out but also dragging her into it as well. He is also so far gone that he doesn’t even want to evacuate as a new storm is approaching. That’s when Dad walks out into the water so David can try and fix the gun clip goof from the first Encounter movie.
In the first Encounter movie Jesus recounts a tale of how he saved the runaway girl from killing herself. He caused her abusive father to stumble so he would take the clip out of the gun he was carrying. The point being that when she picked up the gun it wouldn’t have any bullets in it. The problem was that the father set the clip right next to the gun, but then it disappeared when the camera cut to her coming into the room. That left me saying, “Thanks Jesus, but who moved the clip?” I’m sure I wasn’t the only one who noticed that mistake in the film. This is basically a repeat of that scene except you can see that the red dot is on indicating the safety is off. That isn’t just one quick shot either. They really make sure you get a good look at that gun to make sure you see the dot. It’s also there to build up some tension till Jesus tells him to put down the gun. Think that scene is going to go anywhere? Nope!
The next thing we see is Rik pulling up in a boat, the father putting the gun in his belt, and then Dad taking Rik away to show him the place. Now the gun battle breaks out and everyone in the story is taken hostage by Bruno and Charlie. That means the drug addicted wife, the married couple, and Rik tied to a chair in a room at the resort. Thus begins the Encounter as Jesus appears outside their window.
I must be right up front and say that despite the problems in this part of the film, Jesus is way more like Jesus than he was in the first film. In that one he was like someone selling a time share in Heaven or damnation just down the road. That said, let’s take a look at this part.
Jesus sits down next to the drug addicted wife. Of course he knows everyone’s name. They ask him what his name is and he doesn’t just come right out with Jesus. Again, he’s much more like a kind person in this then in the first movie. He doesn’t immediately dump the Jesus and believe in me stuff on them. He tends to talk to them like he’s just a person there who wants to defuse this otherwise deadly situation. In fact, he doesn’t say his name until he is explicitly asked by Bruno.
In this situation you can think of Charlie as the businessman in the first film. However, as Movie A shows, he isn’t sent to eternal damnation. He is given a chance to pay for his crimes in prison. Much better than the first film in this regard.
The next part that is worth mentioning is when Jesus takes some potshots at Buddhism. Mimi grew up in a monastery before ending up becoming addicted to drugs. She was then bought by Bruno who couldn’t stand seeing her the way she was, but also fell in love with her on sight. I could have done without that. It’s that whole teams thing. It’s not necessary in religion any more than gender. In fact, it’s not needed anywhere, but in sports where we emphasize having good sportsmanship.
She is the first person he tries to help. You can say he preys on her because she’s the weakest point. There’s something to that, but it also makes sense to start with her since she’s the easiest to fix. It also makes sense to start with her because aside from the married couple, the other’s lives revolve around victims like herself. Still, instead of working through her pre-existing religion, he tries to directly contradict it and convert her.
Throughout this there are problems with focus and other camera issues. Here’s an example.
The camera really doesn’t seem to know where to focus, tries to focus on Jesus after Bruno passes in front of him, then just quickly cuts away. There was a similar shot in the first film where the camera was changing from a background character to one in the foreground, but then just suddenly cut away.
Here’s another example.
Late in Movie B, Jesus reaches out and takes Rik by the hand. The focus, framing, and who is talking don’t come together properly in the shot. The hand holding is too low to really be a focal point. The focus leaves just about everything out of focus, but the hands. Yet, despite the hands being in focus, Jesus is the one doing the talking and is all blurry. This is the kind of thing that needed some work.
The next major plot point is that we find out the husband did some shady business deals to buy the hotel in the paradise of Thailand. Also, that while the mother never really believed her son was gone forever, he did, and his wife taking comfort in her beliefs drove him to the brink of suicide.
Oh, and then he heals Mimi.
Again, while Jesus does have his “join me” lines, he really is more like a good psychologist who just wants to help. Can’t tell you how refreshing that was after the first film, which was arduous to sit through, much less write about.
Another problem is that some times the camera spends so much time with a couple of the characters that the suspension of disbelief that all of the actors are actually in the room begins to wear thin. I don’t remember feeling that in the first film. This time around, I kept wondering if David A.R. White as Rik or Gary Daniels as Charlie were even around anymore. You’ll also see this shot…
several times where the camera pans as if to remind the audience of who is there and the layout of the room. That shouldn’t have had to be done if there was better camerawork that didn’t explicitly need this kind reorientation.
Oh, and just like several other elements are recycled from the first film, we get the equivalent of the two ladies in the bathroom scene. This time around, they are in the kitchen.
Let’s cut to the chase now. Jesus heals Mimi literally. Jesus brings the married couple around. Rik breaks free. Rik tries to shoot Charlie, but Bruno jumps in front of him to die for Charlie’s, or all of their sins if you will. That’s when Jesus opens the imaging chamber door…
and the two of them leave.
That’s where movie A picks up.
Oh, there is one final bit.
You didn’t really think you’d get away without some sequel baiting, did you? They did it at the end of the first film too. They are talking about Rik here who is sitting on the beach near them.
My final thoughts on this are that it feels like an aborted experiment. It feels like the movie was supposed to be about Rik and his journey while Jesus and the Devil fight for how he will deal with Bruno and Charlie. All the while, the two of them also fighting for the hearts and minds of Bruno and Charlie. However, for whatever reason, they had to toss that idea out the window after certain footage was already filmed and just go with a far less preachy and contradiction filled version of the first film. Too bad. I might have enjoyed that film better than I did this one. If you must see one of the Encounter films, then this is the better of the two. I doubt we will get another sequel till the God’s Not Dead gravy train ends for Pure Flix. Then they’ll probably take another crack at this franchise.
Last night at the Oscars we had a comedy bit where black actors were inserted into movies that were nominated for awards. They took somewhat humorous shots at The Martian and Joy. Then The Danish Girl came up. I haven’t seen it yet and I’ve heard it’s god awful. None of that matters. They inserted comedic actor Tracy Morgan into the movie, put him in a dress, then told us to laugh at him because he was a man in a dress who was being the black version of the trans woman from the film. Then for more shits and giggles, they actually had him eat a danish. That was vile and despicable. I have been laughed at for something as simple as wearing tights. I can’t possibly imagine walking outside in a dress right now, and have even less courage to do so after last night’s display of kicking an even smaller minority to the curb while supposedly trying to send a message about having another minority appear more often in films. While I seriously doubt she would have done it, having Laverne Cox of Orange Is The New Black fame, who is both black and trans, do that might have actually sent a positive message. Thank you very much Oscars for making it clear that not only was it worth dragging on the blacks in film thing so long that it started to feel like a joke itself, but for giving all trans women a punch in the face. Much appreciated.
That right there is an example of the central theme of this movie. Not avoiding conflict. That can be for a number of reasons. Not letting other people make decisions that should be yours since it is your life. Not being paralyzed by a fear of conflict when facing it could lead to a much needed reconciliation. Not letting other people treat you like trash, but standing up for yourself instead. It can also be something as simple as saying, “No, you have no right to do that. I want the refund I’m owed.” The book this movie is based on is even called My Life As A Doormat. So how the hell did this movie end up being called Love’s Complicated? I’m guessing Hallmark has a quota to meet of movies with “love” in the title. Honestly, love barely is a part of the movie.
The movie begins by quickly showing us Leah (Holly Marie Combs), who is a writer, at home before cutting to a radio station to introduce us to Cinco (Ben Bass). He isn’t a shock jock or a woman hating radio personality. I think the best way to describe him is as a debater. He is someone who isn’t afraid to express his opinion, but we will get to his fear of conflict issue later. During this opening credit sequence it cuts back and forth between them. We find out one useful piece of information here, and that is that Leah isn’t a big fan of his. We’ll find out later that he didn’t give a favorable review to her last book. And segue!
We are now with Leah and Catherine Disher from The Good Witch. Hmm…I think there’s an in-joke here. She is told her book needs serious work. Basically spice things up by adding some conflict. The very thing that is the Source of the problems in her life.
I love that Leah has one of those keyboards similar to the old IBM keyboards. Those things are very satisfying to type on. It makes sense that a writer would have one. I could mention the roommate here, but she’s a minor character. She’s what I call a nudger character in Hallmark movies. A character who isn’t unimportant, but is really there to show up occasionally to nudge the main character in the right direction.
Now we meet Leah’s boyfriend Edward (Randal Edwards). As you can see, it looks like Leah just wishes she could freeze him in place so she could get up without having to confront him. Anyways, the two of them soon go off to a party where she insists on wearing a red dress that he isn’t so happy with. Now for plot I guess, here’s Cinco just hanging out in the flowers to run into Leah at the party.
He actually tells her to throw the wine in his face because of his bad review of her book. Of course her being non-confrontational means she doesn’t. Although, I bet she would have liked to make him explode if she could. She’ll come around eventually.
Phew! Three references to Charmed should be enough.
Next for reasons that are beyond me, Leah’s boyfriend gives her a coupon to a conflict management course. I’d say just for plot, but Edward is really odd in this so I buy that he gives this to her, and then doesn’t show up because he meant it to be just for her.
She goes, and of course for again reasons, Cinco is there. There also are a few other people there including a married couple named Robert (Brad Borbridge) and Glenda (Precious Chong). Sorry, I wasn’t able to avoid that witch reference. It’s in the movie after all. Although, I’m still not sure why Catherine Disher’s character is named J.R. I’m really not sure what a reference to Dallas is doing here, but okay.
Believe it or not, that’s all the setup that’s necessary for this movie. She keeps going back to the group and never tells them Edward is a boyfriend till the end of the film. She does learn to not be afraid of conflict, which was systemic in her case. She helps Cinco in turn to take a chance and visit his father who he hasn’t spoken to in awhile. Instead of fearing a confrontation, he just gives him a hug. In his case it works. At the end of the film, he and his father, who both love to argue, are having a lively debate on the radio. The other people in the class come around too. In the end, she breaks it off with Edward, writes a book called My Life As A Doormat, and winds up with Cinco.
As I hope you can tell, the love part is incidental to the story of overcoming a fear of conflict. I like that the film was clearly done on the cheap, but they told a story that didn’t require more money in order to tell. I appreciate it when a film molds itself to the production constraints rather than feeling like it’s running into money walls. That said, there are several times when it feels like the movie thinks we have spent more time with the characters than we actual have. I would give it a marginal recommendation.
Now since I feel better than when I wrote my last Hallmark review, here are the normal things you’ve come accustomed to seeing in my reviews.
I actually like this fake computer screen. It’s cartoony sure, but it has the right elements.
This shot tells us that at least this part was done in Sudbury, Ontario. I believe this is the first Hallmark movie I’ve seen shot there.
This shot though, is from Minnesota.
However, the movie either doesn’t mention it at all, or makes very little fuss about where it’s supposed to take place. It’s not like so many Hallmark movies that really try to convince you it’s the US when it’s Canada.
When I made that ordering of the best Valentine’s Day movies from Hallmark this year on my post for Appetite For Love, I was not aware the new Signed, Sealed, Delivered movie was also going to be part of their Valentine’s Day lineup. To put it bluntly, screw the other five, and watch this. I hope more Hallmark fans are tuning into their Movies & Mysteries Channel movies because the Signed, Sealed, Delivered films are the best ones Hallmark airs. Nothing else really compares. That said, this one needed some trimming. The main plot and a little furthering of the relationship between Norman (Geoff Gustafson) and Rita (Crystal Lowe) was all we really needed. The rest of the plots feel extraneous and just add more to follow without much payoff.
Interestingly, this is the first of the Signed, Sealed, Delivered movies to not be helmed by Kevin Fair. This time around they brought in October Kiss director Lynne Stopkewich. She has had an interesting career so far to say the least. She does a fine job here. I have no complaints about the directing.
Often we get the title card of a Hallmark movie almost immediately, but not this time. A fair amount of setup occurs before that happens.
The movie begins back in 1835 with a woman making a Valentine for someone in America. We will eventually be told who the Valentine was meant for, which is kind of neat, but not really. It winds up in Norman’s hands, and it does serve a purpose for a scene with him near the end, but he didn’t need the letter for his lines to work just as well. This is a part that really could have been trimmed in my opinion. The movie already had enough plots going that it didn’t need this one thrown in as well.
Then matching on the action of the 1835 handmade Valentine, we jump to present day and see Oliver (Eric Mabius) making his own Valentine for Shane (Kristin Booth). He then hands it off to be mailed to her instead of just giving it to her…for reasons? This is another part that could have been snipped. The letter will take the entire film to end up in Shane’s hands. It ends up in a box she doesn’t know has anything but Valentine decorations in it.
Now you’d think that title card might pop up now, but nope.
The dead letter comes in, and Oliver instantly takes it to run off to a restaurant.
We now go back 15 years to find a kid mailing that letter before asking a police officer where he needs to go to turn himself in.
Now we get the title card and title track of the series. It took awhile. I was wondering if it would ever show up. By the way, that 15 years earlier thing is the main plot of the film. Unlike previous Signed, Sealed, Delivered movies, this one does act more like a procedural rather than having the letter lead to a major revelation about the characters that moves them forward for the next film. I liked that. I’ve always wanted the tracking down the letter to truly be the center of attention instead of say Oliver discovering the truth about his father. There is a little bit of a blast from the past, literally, but it’s minor compared to previous installments.
Another plot is that Rita will get called in to be Miss Special Delivery because the people above her were disqualified in some manner. This goes nowhere really. It goes viral that Rita and Norman are an item and for no real reason she denies it during a press conference. Of course she ends up coming around in the end. I’m really not sure of any good reason for this plot to happen. Maybe a little reinforcement of their relationship since she certainly hurt Norman in the process. She must have been a little uncertain on her end. Otherwise, it just leads to some lines about how people share things today. Blah, blah, blah. People have been doing that sort of thing for a long time. Even as far back as the 1930’s, if not earlier. I’ve read stupid old newspaper stories telling us someone is leaving to go on vacation. I wouldn’t say this should have been snipped, but they could have found a better way to forward the Norman and Rita thing. Oh, and this happens to Norman at one point in the film.
It’s the funniest part of the movie, and since I don’t intend to do this movie blow by blow, I had to stick it somewhere. After picking up two baby doll arms in a dumpster, Norman says, “You wake up in the morning, and you never really know how your day is going to end.”
Here is the literal blast from the past. Back when Oliver was Cliff Clavin, he was going to pick up the mail from the mailbox where the kid dropped off the now dead letter. He decided to wait a little bit before he was supposed to pick up the letters because of a police officer who would be in the area that he liked. Since he waited a little bit, an actual clown showed up, and after a little accident with helium…KABOOM! Since Oliver really does take things seriously USPS wise, he never really forgave himself. As a result, he really wants to get this letter that was involved in the accident to its intended recipient.
You got all that? We have an 1835 Valentine that winds up in Norman’s hands that we don’t know who it’s for at first. We have Oliver’s Valentine for Shane going everywhere but her hands. We have the policewoman that Oliver likes. Oh yeah, that actually is a really tiny little plot in this too. We also have Rita and Norman needed to mend fences after she denies publicly that she is seeing him. Then finally, we have the main plot of the movie. All of these plots are affairs of the heart, which ties into the title, and the main plot, but it was a bit much.
These two are the main plot. That’s Ryan (Nick Purcha) and Maddie (Mackenzie Cardwell) 15 years earlier. They meet because they are both on the debate team. She isn’t very charismatic, but is good with research. He is the opposite. He’s charismatic, but usually doesn’t have that much substance to back what he is saying. Their plot is the best part of the movie. It leads to tragedy, which is why he turned himself into the police at the beginning of the film. A little spoiler: he killed somebody. It will also jump the 15 year gap when the letter finds it’s way to the two of them when they are adults.
I know I normally take you through the whole film, but not this time. I haven’t felt well lately. Also, that would have me trying to juggle all these plot lines or try to tell each one separately. This isn’t a Godfrey Ho movie where telling the plot lines separate makes the film more coherent. This is like the first two Godfather films where you lose something by rearranging events into chronological order. There is a reason these plots are woven together the way they are.
Like I said at the start, forget the other Hallmark Valentine’s Day movies this year, and watch this one instead.
I finally got out of South Korea for at least two of these movies. That’s something. Too bad none of them were very good. Let’s begin.
Shadows in the Distance (2015, dir. Orlando Bosch) –
I wrote a longer review here if you want to read it.
Oh, “Lust At First Glance”. That sounds interesting. Let’s look at the trailer.
At least the trailer is honest. Somewhat. What it doesn’t tell you is that the movie is really director Orlando Bosch throwing every art film cliche he can think of at the screen. It really doesn’t work. The movie even shows a clip of Breathless (1960) in it. The film is supposed to be about a couple who notice each other in a movie theater then pursue each other, kind of, sort of, not really. That shot at the end of the trailer that looks like a ridiculous art exhibit scene is an example of the kind of art house cliches I’m referring to.
Look familiar? Sure reminded me of something.
Yep, the “documentary” on black people having sex called Black Love (1971).
I particularly love the scene where they both go into a telephone booth to get out of the rain. Who does that? The rain could go on all night. Are you going to sleep there? You are better off making your way home and taking a shower.
I hope director Orlando Bosch really tries to forget this movie and move on from that third stage of cinephilia where you become obsessed with the world canon. Please drop the art film cliches. I was sick of these a long time ago. It was already really old when Leos Carax broke them out and filtered them through the MTV version of the French New Wave to make the lousy The Lovers on the Bridge (1991). But I remember Carax using them sparingly and knowing when to use them even if I didn’t like the movie. It really feels like Bosch just tried everything he had ever seen show up in a foreign film.
Spare yourself this movie. The least I can say is that it should be labeled as a comedy on IMDb. I kept laughing throughout the film every time something I had seen in another foreign film showed up for no apparent reason.
Love Affair (2014, dir. Jung Hwan Kim) – Yes, South Korea again. At least that poster is close to being accurate. This was an un-IMDbed movie that I had to add. It actually took two attempts and a lengthy explanation to prove to them this actually exists. It doesn’t help that on Amazon Prime it’s listed with the title Intimacy and uses the poster from the 1966 movie with that title. I think what sealed the deal was that Intimacy is in English, but their link to it on Amazon Prime clearly shows that it has English subtitles. I would love to show you the trailer, but I can’t find it.
I get two strong impressions about this movie. First, I really think the version on Amazon Prime is dubbed into Mandarin. The reason is that I lived with a guy from China for 2 years in college and they sure sounded just like when he would be talking on the phone. Oddly, this film has another tie to that roommate from college. The second thing is that I think this was a film adaptation of a Korean drama. I even get the feeling that it was just the original drama edited down to about a 90 minute film. I know that at least Korea adapting their Dramas into regular films is a thing. I did watch My Sassy Girl (2001) back in college at the encouragement of my roommate.
The movie is the title. An older married guy who runs a bookstore has an affair with another married woman. There really isn’t anything else plot wise. The only thing in that area is that there are two friends of the bookstore owner. I think they are his brothers. Either that or they really like the whole “Hey, Bro” thing. His Bro that fancies himself a bit of a ladies man really reminded me of my college roommate Rocky. Rocky could have played this guy even though he wasn’t a ladies man type.
It’s reasonably good. It certainly is the best of the three films here. I liked the leads. I especially like the actor they chose for the bookstore owner. He has a great older, but still very handsome, kind, and beautiful face. I think he was perfectly cast in the role. It has some problems and some weird editing at times, but this is the one to check out of the films here. If it’s still up when you get here, then there it is. Otherwise, it should be easy to find.
Virgin Theory: 7 Steps to Get on the Top (2014, dir. Ahn Cheol-ho) – That is the poster they show on Amazon Prime. Any reasonable person would look at that poster and think they are going to watch erotica. It’s like the trailer for My Baby Is Black! (1961) that was made to look like an exploitation film for the American market.
Here is a realistic poster for this movie.
Oh, and you’re probably wondering what exactly has the girl on the left who is shocked and the girl on the right who is bored. They are looking at porn. No joke. They are looking at porn. That’s the movie in a gist. The girl on the left is a virgin and wants to get laid. The girl on right is certainly not a virgin and wants to be taken seriously by people. They end up together because the girl on right was sleeping with the girl on the left’s father who left the house to her when he died during sex. They make sure you know that even by showing a condom with sperm in the tip picked up off the floor.
The virgin wants to go out with a ballet dancer and even envisions him in his tights, but untucked. The girl on the right does art, wants to be taken seriously, but doesn’t seem to realize that maybe dialing back on the sleeping around thing might help a little. I mean she was sleeping with the virgin’s father who apparently is so important that a call to the president of South Korea can be made. Her sex life is a tad high profile. She winds up trying to give the virgin instructions on how to get a guy. By and large, they are the kind of instructions someone who has watched too many movies like Hooked Up (2009) would give. That’s the movie with Corey Feldman, who never appears to have aged after all these years, which is obsessed with blow jobs.
That’s the movie. I don’t even remember how it ends. That’s how little of an imprint this sex comedy left on me.
9 1/2 Dates (2008, dir. Tamás Sas) – Oh, yeah! That looks like a lesbian love story poster to me. I mean look at the one for Fingersmith (2005) which is a lesbian movie.
Or the poster for The Guest House (2012) which is also a lesbian love story.
This isn’t a lesbian story. Let’s take another look at the poster. It says the cast that get top billing are Ferenc Elek, Patricia Kovács, and Gábor Hevér. That’s two actors and an actress. So of course 80-90 percent of the movie is actually with actor Iván Fenyö. Here is the realistic poster for this movie.
Just wow! You probably want to know what the plot of this movie is now. Sorry, I nearly forgot with these misleading posters.
The movie is about a guy named Dávid who wrote a book that did well, but hasn’t really published anything recently. However, he is now under pressure to put something out and is told to date 10 women, then turn around to write about what he learned from the experience. Sounds like a simple enough concept. Shouldn’t be too hard to do. Well, they screwed it up.
First, the directing is sloppy. A quick example is when a musical audio lead-in starts so soon during the current scene that we aren’t sure if it’s coming from the radio or not. This kind of bad directing plagues the film.
Second, you’d think the movie would focus on the women he dates while having the lead be low-key and mainly listen to the ladies he is dating so he has material for his book. Yeah, you’d think that, but it’s not. The dates are pushed so far onto the back burner of this film that you could forget they exist. You could even forget that the women he dates paint a bit of sad portrait of modern Hungarian women. Seriously, they are so glossed over that you can totally miss that. They are really subplots in this movie. The main plot is him trying to get back in with his ex who has been assigned to work with him on the book.
Thirdly, while this is a problem with Amazon Prime and not the movie, the subtitles are fast as lightning. If you are going to subject yourself to this movie, then make sure you can read fast. You’d think they would be onscreen longer when there are a bunch of words on the screen. Nope! Sometimes that happens, but often it disappears so fast that you are missing half of what is being said. Also, I think these subtitles weren’t done by someone who has a good grasp on the English language. It’s not awful, but there are enough moments where the subtitles really don’t read right.
So, it’s sloppy, glosses over it’s plot, and has subtitles you have to be very quick to read. Avoid it.
Go with Love Affair if you want to see any of these movies.
It doesn’t happen every time, but this time they did it. If you came here just with the hopes that I might know some of the songs that were used in the movie, then you can scroll to the end of this review. Hallmark actually included the songs in the credits this time. I’ve added the screenshot that shows them there.
Unfortunately, they also come right out and tell you in the credits the exact cities where they filmed the movie. Darn it, Hallmark! That takes out all the fun of trying to figure it out.
Note: Notice the Asian and black lady. I think this is the first Hallmark movie I’ve ever seen with so many people who aren’t white.
We open up with shots of a city which is supposed to be Chatham, Georgia. Seems like a nice place to live. The coffee truck comes right out and tells us that there are “No Bad Days”. Oh, and that’s Mina played by Taylor Cole who’s about it to have a bad day.
That’s when text boxes appear onscreen to tell us what text messages are going on between Mina and her boyfriend Reed played by Marcus Rosner. I’m sorry but these text boxes…
are no replacement for the computer and text overlays you get in Hallmark movies directed by Kristoffer Tabori. These look like they belong in a cartoon or something.
Mina works at a place called ICB, which stands for International Corporate Brands. Mina goes into the office building and has a short talk with Zoe played by Morgan Taylor Campbell…
who looks like she’s on her way to a Laura San Giacomo lookalike contest.
Before we setup the plot of the film we take a short trip to the boardroom.
This scene actually exists to super early tell us that Mina’s boyfriend is a jerk.
Now her boss (Michael Kospa) who sits at a desk in front of a poster with a butcher’s knife on it tells her she needs to go to Sycamore Springs, Tennessee. The reason she has to go there is when the plot confusion starts. Her boss named Larry actually says that “ICB recently purchased a small regional chain [restaurants] that corporate wants to re-brand and expand.” Apparently, all the stores except the flagship one have made the appropriate changes. She has to go there and make them fall in line. They aren’t responding to calls or emails. Oh, and she’s from that town because Hallmark. What’s confusing here is that later Mina will tell us that ICB is a brand management company. That would mean they don’t actually own anything. They are a go between for other firms who actually own this “small regional chain” of restaurants. Believe me, that may seem like it’s a small thing, but it does make the plot seem a little weird at times as things don’t quite add up.
Moving on, we have a short conversation with her friend Zoe to make sure we know that Mina left Sycamore Springs over a dude. Then it’s off so that Marcus Rosner can be just as much of a jerk boyfriend without having to stoop to alluding to bestiality like the guy in Christmas Land. Kudos to the cinematographer Eric Goldstein for this shot.
He made sure to keep the top part of the phone enough out of focus so that we can’t read the Canadian cellphone providers name. They will screw it up later, but credit where credit is due.
The way this boyfriend talks about a five-year plan and only having one baby it made me think of China or something. Just kind of weird, but we don’t have time to discuss that because now Mina is off to Tennessee. We know she’s getting close because the radio is playing nothing but country music.
Must be a bit of a Twilight Zone too seeing as 97.7 out of Jackson, Tennessee plays R&B and Old Skool according to their website. Apparently, also 95.3 has magically stopped playing rock and pop from the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. Weird. Anyways, I’m going ahead and turning on country/rock/pop mixture artist Ryan Adams.
I would give you A Kiss Before I Go by Ryan Adams and The Cardinals instead, but some of the videos I embed have a magical tendency to disappear on reviews of Hallmark movies when I don’t like the film. It’s magic, I tell you!
Now Mina nearly runs into some cows before getting out of the car and stepping in poop. Could be worse, Mina. You could be threatened with two years in jail for dancing to country music, being from the city, and getting a drink thrown at you like in Valentine Ever After.
Of course she immediately runs into her childhood friend that she left town to get away from. That’s Clay played by Andrew W. Walker. After Bridal Wave, I guess he became a cowboy. He deals with the cows, and drops the info that she was known as Willy in town. I love how everyone will keep calling her by that name and won’t stop no matter how many times she tells them too. It’s like they don’t actually care at all what she thinks or wants to do with her life.
Now she pulls into town and goes to the Sycamore Springs Inn. I love that the lady (Fiona Vroom) seems to be disappointed that Mina doesn’t recognize her. Of course we get the popularity line, but we also find out she was a year behind her in school. I grew up in a small town. A year ahead or behind in school usually means you basically exist in a separate universe. Don’t really know what her problem is here. She also tells us of the upcoming Sweetheart Festival. She now checks her PDF file…
and finds that they are booked solid. That means it’s off to her Aunt’s (Alley Mills) place. It was either that or a roll-away at the Squirrel’s Nest Inn.
Hey, it’s Norma Arnold from The Wonder Years! That’s all to that really. She’s just there to remind Mina that none of them are going to call her by the name she wants to be called. Off to the restaurant called Hart’s Country!
It’s at 23904 Fraser Highway in Langley, British Columbia, Tennessee. She’s showed up during United States appreciation month so the Canadian flag that is usually up was taken down. Inside, it looks like a nice diner.
I think my favorite sign there is “Soup & Sarcasm: Now Served All Day”. That could almost be the tagline for all of my reviews. Of course Clay runs the restaurant. We find out that Clay’s Dad died three months ago. That’s sad, and they will never explain why he sold the restaurant so if you were hoping for some logic there, then you’re out of luck. She informs him that Hart’s was bought by ICB even though they can’t buy anything being a brand management company.
As I seem to do a lot with my reviews, this is as good a time as any to mention something about this movie I don’t know where else to include.
I really did like the character of Lucien played by Antonio Cayonne who works at the restaurant. He always seemed to be nice and had a kind face throughout while never seeming wasted or a complete cutout of a character. Just wanted to point him out cause he’s a bright point in the film.
Let’s speed things up here since there really isn’t much to this story and you’ve got the setup now. She’s there to make sure they fall in line. It’s how she’s gonna spend time with Clay. Nobody is going to show a shred of dignity by simply calling her by the name she prefers without her reminding them to do it. But most importantly, the restaurant will sort of fight the changes. They kind of compromise, but still prefer to get their ingredients from local sources. It’s like they gave Damon Hill and Howard Chesley some sort of Hallmark movie writing bible and they wrote something quite generic and lazy. Let’s try to hit the main points.
While I had to use the crib notes credits about the locations, this scene does reveal that this part of the movie was shot in Abbotsford, British Columbia. Also, this scene is one of the very very few times you’ll see Mina check-in with headquarters. It winds up making the final boardroom presentation she gives seem a little weird since you’d think they would have already known this stuff was in the works. That is unless they really trust her that much, which would contradict her boss telling her he thinks “it’s time you took the lead on your own project.” Just another hole in the script. None of these holes ruin the romance part really, but they do make the film needlessly confusing.
We get a conversation now that makes it clear Clay’s Dad did make a deal to sell his place and it included all the changes she is asking of him. That would mean it wasn’t like Hart’s was a public company that was bought out. Yet someone will tell Clay that his Dad would be spinning in his grave if he knew what was going on.
Now we get yet another scene to confuse matters more. Clay goes to the local bar to vent to his friend. We will ultimately find out that Clay took a big loan out to help his friend who runs the bar and Mina will tell him that’s a reason he has violated the agreement, but then that plot point seems to magically disappear from the story and return in a weird way near the end of the movie.
The next notable scene is one where Mina says that Hart’s will serve Hamburgers, Hot Dogs, and Chicken among other things. One of the people says “it’s not actual food.” Another line that really doesn’t quite make sense at the time it’s uttered. Later we will find out that “actual food” according to her is homegrown which is really the restaurant’s main point of contention with being bought. The rest is small stuff that they can realistically all work out, but using only homegrown ingredients is expensive. This is also the part where we actually find out ICB only manages brands. They don’t actually own the brands in question. And scene! Seriously, as soon as she drops that bit of information so that future parts sort of make sense, it just cuts to Clay fishing.
This is now when Clay suddenly pulls a will out that says his father left the title to the restaurant to him. He says that means ICB owns the brand, which they don’t since they are just a management firm, but that he owns the restaurant itself. What? That just sounds like someone had an afterthought when writing this script. Also, this will not lead the movie to a conclusion of them giving up the Hart’s brand name and keeping the restaurant. That would end the film too soon and make too much sense.
Now we have a brief scene where they complain about uniforms and name tags. Why? The point of a uniform and/or a name tag is so you know who works there when you eat at a restaurant and so you can be polite by calling them by their name rather than “waiter” or “hey you”. It just makes the restaurant sound like they deliberately don’t want anyone from outside their small town coming to this restaurant. It’s weird and out of place.
Then we get the Sweetheart Festival scenes. It’s like they finally decided to stop heavily focusing on this re-branding stuff and give us some fun back and forth between the two leads. People still keep calling her Willy though. Yes, I know that it’s mentioned over and over because it’s supposed to represent that she has been re-branded herself with the new name, but it just makes the locals seem mean. This is especially noticeable with her Aunt.
My favorite part of this festival is when they have a race where they have to stop at stations and eat food from the restaurant. Sounds like a recipe for a lot of people throwing up to me. However, I love when they come to the station that has The Pecan Tsunami on the table.
The looks they get on their faces when they realize they have to eat that much desert this far into the race are pretty funny.
After the race, both of them start to loosen up and the movie winds down pretty quickly. The two spend some more time together. We find out more about how Clay is going to use local resources even more in the restaurant. The ex-boyfriend shows up and disappears pretty fast. But he doesn’t leave us before giving us two cellphone screen screw ups and a little more plot confusion. He’s not totally selfish.
You can see the Canadian cellphone provider Bell at the top. The rest of the screen looking weird may be just because I caught the screenshot while the screen itself was changing, but probably not because this likely is just a screenshot given the next thing we see.
Anyone who has ever used a cellphone knows that thankfully they turn off the screen when you put it to your ear so you don’t accidentally hit buttons. It wouldn’t do that, like it doesn’t here, unless he is simply talking to a cellphone with a screenshot displaying on it.
Now Reed tells Clay at the festival that the agreement Clay’s Dad made prohibits transferring of the property meaning Clay doesn’t own anything. He also says that the $100,000 loan he took out against his business to help his friend’s bar means that “the mortgage and entire property being turned over to ICB.” Wait…what? So first the will is invalid meaning Clay doesn’t own anything, but the loan he took out to help his friend is going to cause the property to be turned over to ICB that owned it in the first place. Did he mean that the bar was going to be turned over to ICB who again doesn’t own anything themselves? I don’t know. It ultimately doesn’t matter, but just adds needless confusion to the story which should be simple.
Now Mina goes back to ICB to tell them they shouldn’t turn Hart’s into “just another cookie-cutter chain”. She shows some photos that she has been taking with her iPad during the movie to show them what she is talking about. But then she starts to talk down to these people. She starts off with some reasonable things about having a place where they serve fresh food and everything. That sounds nice. I mean they have made it clear up to now that the business has close ties to the local farmers that supply them with the ingredients for the food, which the farmers in turn come to eat. They even can get the water locally. Sounds like that could bring down costs a bit and it seems like a neat idea to have a flagship store that is unique in a chain of stores. To my knowledge, this is something businesses do in real life. But of course there’s also the bit about “relentless advertising”, “60-inch TVs”, and “pictures of little league teams”. She also says, “We don’t need to re-brand Hart’s, sir. We should be using Hart’s to re-brand ICB.” Then this happens.
She says that it would be nice for restaurants to go back to being a place where people “actually talked while they ate”. Not a bad point were it not for the fact that we saw her talking to her friend in a coffee shop just fine at the beginning. We also saw her and many other people talking in a restaurant at the beginning of the movie too.
Aside from being insulting even though some of her points make sense, again, ICB DOESN’T OWN ANYTHING. At the end of the day, it’s not their decision to make.
Well, of course after Jimmy Mina Stewart gets done with her speech we found out that it works, and in short order she winds up back with Clay. Cut to One Year Later and the business seems to be doing better than before. Must have been the relentless advertising and selling their own bottled water.
Then they do something I never thought I would see in a Hallmark movie.
They break the fourth wall for the final shot. Oh, and she’s pregnant.
My final thoughts on this one. The pros are the more ethnically diverse cast, the beautiful outdoor areas in Canada, and definitely actor Antonio Cayonne. The cons are the incessant it’s Mina not Willy thing, the confusing plot with ICB that didn’t really need to be that way, and the usual small towns are the bastions of the real America nonsense. The cons were too much for me this time around. I can’t recommend this one. Out of the recent crop of Valentine’s Day Hallmark movies, I would say it goes like this:
“And I would do anything for love. I’d run right into hell and back. I would do anything for love. I’ll never lie to you, and that’s a fact. But I’ll never forget the way you feel right now. Oh, no. No way. And I would do anything for love. But I won’t do that. No I won’t do that. Anything for love. Oh, I would do anything for love. I would do anything for love. But I won’t do that. No I won’t do that.”
-I’d Do Anything For Love (But I Won’t Do That) performed by Meatloaf and written by David Steinman
Okay, as much as that song fits the tile, they really couldn’t open a romantic comedy with such a serious operatic song. Instead, we dip into another 1970’s artist’s repertoire for a song. Well, 1970s when she was solo. That being Linda Ronstadt singing When Will I Be Loved.
The movie begins and we are introduced to Katherine Benson (Erika Christensen) and Jack Cooper (Paul Greene) as they both get ready for work. She’s a president of a real estate firm and he is a nurse. I have to admit that while I recognized Linda’s voice, I wasn’t sure who it was till I looked it up later. Also, it didn’t help that the movie cuts to Jack in bed during the song and his Great Dane is named Roxy. Of course that made me think of Roxy Music and their song More Than This.
However, while Bill Murray was in Lost In Translation, sang the song, it was directed by Sofia Coppola, and Paul Greene was in her film Somewhere (2010), there is a more appropriate Roxy Music song for a later scene.
As soon as Katherine arrives at work we meet her secretary named Debbie.
I’m really not sure if we are meant to look down on Debbie for dating so many men or not. I get the feeling that we aren’t. She is supposed to stand in contrast to Katherine as someone who may be just an executive assistant, but seems to be a whole lot happier because she puts herself out there. Katherine seems wound pretty tight and isolated even if she is rich and powerful.
Despite her tough exterior and what she soon says to her father, I’d say Katherine wants to know what love is (I Want To Know What Love Is by Foreigner).
Hey! If Hallmark can start whipping out Billy Joel, REO Speedwagon, and Linda Ronstadt, then I can add some great music to my reviews too.
We now meet Katherine’s father named Edward Benson (Tom Butler). He walks right in and tells us her it’s about time she gets serious with her boyfriend named Charles (Antonio Cupo). She’s worried that he might just want to get his hands on her company. That’s when Dad pulls out the big guns.
That’s right! A picture of her on a pony. He reminds her of how scared she was to get on it till he got her on it and walked with her the whole way. He says he would walk “a million circles before I’d ever let any harm come to you”. That may be true, but she deserves a man who would walk 500 miles just to fall down at her door (I’m Gonna Be (500 Miles)).
I kind of feel bad if the movie is going to make this so easy for me. Nevertheless, since he did whip out the pony and they did start with Ronstadt, I simply can’t let it slide. Here is The Stone Poneys’ Different Drum. Even if it is getting a little ahead of myself.
Now we go to work with Jack at the hospital. There is a little subplot here, but I’m gonna be blunt. That subplot is really just there for one reason. So that we can at least see Jack do some nursing. He just basically tries to help the kid from shutting himself out from the world and only living in fear of his upcoming surgery. He sort of takes away his gaming device to give him a book. I thought it was a bit ridiculous since studies have shown that gaming really helps patients in hospitals. However, honestly, it isn’t helping this particular kid. It still comes across as a bit of pandering to a fear of technology and modern culture, but I’m okay with it here.
This is as good a time as any to mention that any weirdness about male nurses in this movie is kind of stupid. I mean if this were the pre-ER days, then sure. But it isn’t. That show had plenty of male nurses and was extremely popular. It just seemed dumb to me. Luckily, our man Jack basically feels the same way even if his unhelpful friend here is making him a bit of a jealous guy when they are looking at ladies throwing themselves at the doctors. I’m going with the Roxy Music cover version here since I promised at least one more their songs (Jealous Guy by Roxy Music).
Now we go out with Katherine and her boyfriend Charles. Charles does the standard low key I’m not the right guy Hallmark thing. He also proposes. Well, sort of.
He seems to want to pin her and go steady. I’d cue up Neil Sedaka, but that would imply this is them going steady again. I’d say he’s thinking more When In Rome’s The Promise…
while she’s feeling more like Real Life’s Send Me An Angel rather than sticking me with Charles.
That awkward moment when you spend a bunch of time looking for the appropriate song for a scene, go with Send Me An Angel, then come to the next scene only to remember that one of the minor characters is named Angel. These girls are just here to setup what both Katherine and Jack are going to do for love. We find out from Jack’s friend that he should lie about his job to get girls. In his case it’s upscaling to a doctor. In the next scene, it’s Debbie convincing Katherine that she should downscale to an executive assistant like herself in order to get men. This leads both to put up fake profiles on a dating website. It also means I get to post Lies by The Knickerbockers.
Yes, you are reading the title of the website right. So here you go with The Go-Go’s Head Over Heels.
And yes, Debbie is signing Katherine up as if she is her. I love that her favorite food is “Black Coffee”. That, and is that a fake pharmaceutical type ad at the bottom of the dating website?
I guess that’s a yes. You can see that Jack is being honest. Sadly, his friend is in the room. While Jack steps out of the room, he changes Jack’s occupation to a doctor and submits the profile causing Jack to not know he hasn’t been truthful.
The funny thing is, that’s a real dating website run in the UK.
Now we get something that I just plain don’t get.
The sign behind the lady. There’s no drugs on the premises? What? This is a hospital. Wouldn’t drugs be all over the place. Please if you have an explanation for this then tell me cause it makes no sense to me. However, I think it’s a mistake cause the sign is covered over later in the movie.
Now they start dating which begins with bowling. I’m sorry, but we’ll just have to imagine they left the skinheads at home cause Camper Van Beethoven has the only bowling song I know (Take The Skinheads Bowling by Camper Van Beethoven).
I like the sweet scene that follows. Katherine walks into her office to find two sets of flowers. One is from Charles and the other is for Debbie, as Katherine tells her father. However, they are for Katherine and she treasures them. It’s a nice scene.
So there’s your setup. You have Jack who believes he is dating a woman named Debbie who is an executive assistant that thinks he is a doctor. You have Katherine who is playing along, but only in that she is named Debbie and an executive assistant. Not in her feelings for him. Jack does figure it out though, but decides to play along that he is a doctor.
Ultimately, they are going to end up together after a minor speed bump. Yes, the whole he’s not a doctor thing of course, and Charles is behind the reveal. We have stuck with largely 1980s songs so let’s go with what Charles does to get information on Jack. Sing it, Hall & Oates!
She actually breaks it off with Jack and nearly ends up with Charles, but after saying things that are important to a relationship, she throws him a curve ball. He asks him if he would want her if she had Debbie’s job. This is not the face you want to give anyone you want to believe that you are never gonna give up.
And yes, that means Rick Astley.
Didn’t think you were going to get away without him, did you?
The movie has a cute scene where Katherine goes to the hospital and pages Jack. Jack hears it then pages her. They briefly talk, then kiss.
The movie doesn’t explicitly say it really, but it’s very much implied that this is one step away from marriage. In other words, together forever, which of course were the words I used so that I could include Rick Astley again.
Oh, and of course the kid goes off to surgery okay. The book did help him to stop ruminating, calm down, and go forward with what he needed to do.
What are my final thoughts? It’s just a little above average I would say. It avoids some of the typical cliches and doesn’t feel cheap. Case in point, when they are on the roof of a building, they are actually outside. Sadly, that is not a given in Hallmark movies. Don’t seek it out, but if it’s on, then I don’t think you’ll be disappointed if you like Hallmark romance movies.
If you’ve put up with all my musical references, then I end this with probably the most bizarre music video for a love song I’ve ever seen: I Believe In A Thing Called Love by The Darkness.
I can’t get my hands on a copy of The Danish Girl through Netflix until March. As a result, I decided to finally do something I promised on this site last August. That being, among other things, that I would review the film I Want What I Want. I came across this film on a list of Queer Cinema I found on Letterboxd. Well, it’s sort of a transgender movie. Kind of. Not exactly. More like a feminist film from the early 1970s that happens to have a trans woman at the center of it. If that sent shivers down your spine, then you are probably transgender like myself.
Before we actually get to this film we need to look at the full DVD title for it: “I don’t want to live the rest of my life as a man…I want what I want…to be a woman.”
First off, she always was a woman. Trans women are women. End of story. Any mythical idea of transition is only to make ourselves feel more comfortable with who we are. That means we don’t have to do anything whatsoever and we are women. The same goes for trans men. A point lost on people even today so I guess I can let it slide in 1972 even though I don’t want to.
Secondly, was it necessary for Geoff Brown, who wrote the book, and the filmmakers to choose the same words for their title as what a child would say when their parents ask why they need a Wii U in addition to the PS4 and Xbox One they already own? The answer of course being no. They wanted to sell tickets. The same reason Doris Wishman entitled her 1977 mondo movie Let Me Die A Woman. Well, at least the DVD cover is very honest about what you are going to see, right?
See! The cover clearly shows us that a genetic male played by Harry Andrews will play the trans woman prior to transition as shown by the man standing in front of the mirror. Then Anne Heywood will take over to play the main role after the transition as shown by the woman in the mirror.
The movie begins and we see Roy played by Anne Heywood. Yes, I know the deadname thing and all, but at this point in the film she hasn’t chosen a female name. She’s looking out at the women passing by, some who are talking amongst themselves, and others are talking with men. She doesn’t look happy. For trans women who aren’t happy with their bodies and/or presentation, we call this everyday of the week. At least I do.
Now Roy leaves her office. She walks down the street looking at some women and female clothes in a window before passing right through a visual metaphor.
We go home with Roy and once again are greeted with a visual metaphor.
I look over at my mirror and all I see in it is my reflection, a stack of unreviewed DVDs in the closet, a couple of prom dresses, and an Ao Dai. Hey! I took a course on the history of Vietnam in college and those Vietnamese dresses are gorgeous. Don’t you judge me! No seriously, I do own one of those. The prom dresses are another story. But now it’s time for Roy to go downstairs so we can meet her sister Shirley played by Virginia Stride.
This is as good a time as any to bring up two things to do with the voices in this movie:
1. The audio on the DVD isn’t perfect. It has some issues that combined with British accents can cause you to miss a word here or there if you aren’t say, British yourself. I grew up watching Are You Being Served? with some of those accents, and even I had trouble with these otherwise very easy to process accents.
2. You are probably wondering what Anne Heywood sounds like. If you’re close to my age (32), or grew up in the 1980s, then I have a good way for you to picture how she sounds. It’s like the movie Just One Of The Guys (1985). Trying a little bit to deepen the voice, but largely just altering the presentation towards something stereotypically masculine.
Now we meet dad played by Harry Andrews. He’s not so happy with Roy. Hey, it could be worse dad. Roy could grow a mustache and then your “son” would look a little like Rita Pavone in Rita The Field Marshall (1967).
Honestly, that’s what I expected when I found out this movie had Anne Heywood playing a trans woman and saw a picture of her on the back cover.
I get the next scene. It makes sense. Roy is babysitting for her sister and looks at her clothes as well as her wig. That all makes sense to me. What doesn’t make sense is why this was the final shot they chose to go with when Roy’s sister comes home.
Roy, you’re trying to seduce me. Aren’t you? Even Elizabeth Shue was more presentable at the end of Adventures In Babysitting (1987).
Regardless, now we get a scene of Roy at work. It doesn’t really matter what she does. All you need to know in that department is that she has money of her own.
If we weren’t sure the Dad was an asshole, then we get a scene of Roy and him at the grocery store. Basically, the entire scene is Dad telling Roy to leave the upcoming dinner party early so he can go out with a woman.
Then the film reminds us it’s arty, but without water falling from the sky like in Laurence Anyways (2012).
Next Roy is having a conversation with this woman about fashion. The woman is obviously interested and likes him. She will even state this explicitly in the next scene. So why does the father look upset? I mean assuming I buy into all the BS out there about men, which I don’t, wouldn’t this guy love that his “son” is being so devious and taking advantage of women’s supposed only interest to potentially get laid? One of the other guys at the table even points out that Roy is doing very well “for someone who hasn’t been keeping up with the mark.” I guess it’s just supposed to tell us he is already suspicious. Came across as a little weird to me.
After another shot from the top of the table, it’s time to separate the men from the women for the after dinner part. The women seem to like it because it means they “can tear them to pieces” afterwards. Now we cut to Dad who apparently is in the middle of a lecture. He says “there’s change for a reason, then there’s change just for the sake of change.” I totally agree with the man. I don’t buy the universal app excuse from Twitter for the new iPad app. I also don’t appreciate the YouTube app looking like a Speak ‘N Spell.
Anyways, we now see the Dad try and make a move on a woman in a car. I’m sorry, but once you’ve seen Ruthless People (1986), then it’s a little hard to look at this…
and not think of Bill Pullman throwing up.
Now shit gets real cause Dad comes home with her, and after trying to feel her up, discovers the reality about Roy.
The review of this movie on the inside of the DVD by Dennis Dermody is right! The 1970’s really wasn’t the greatest era for women’s fashion. Also, she has heavy blue eyeshadow on. Maybe it’s just me, but after binge watching 7 seasons of Sabrina, The Teenage Witch last year where they seemed to wear nothing but blue eyeshadow, I’m a little sick of it. Also, I would take this otherwise cringe worthy scene more seriously if it didn’t end with Roy leaving with enough money to be completely independent and start presenting as a woman in the blink of an eye. In reality, things like this end with far more deadly outcomes such as the suicide of Leelah Alcorn in December of 2014.
I do like that throughout all of this anger and beating, Roy stands up for herself. She even gives the right answer about how long it’s been going on. She says, “All my life”. Technically that’s not true for all trans women, but some do figure it out quite early like Jazz Jennings. He threatens her with cures. Then he asks her if she’s a homosexual. That means he’s actually asking if she’s straight. Her response is “no”. That would mean she’s a lesbian, but the movie is wishy washy about her sexuality. However, I believe she is meant to be straight.
We now find out that Roy’s mother is dead. She says it’s his fault and he throws her. Then he says that the Germans used to send people like her to the gas chambers. She responds that they used to decorate “people like you”. There’s another line here, but then…yeah…here’s the line after that one:
“God made man in his own image, and he blew it.”
That’s when you start to realize this is less of a transgender film and more a feminist one. Unfortunately, a nasty feminist one considering the ending. Some of you probably reasoned out what that is, but I will get to it eventually for everyone else.
Roy flees for good. Makeover!
I actually appreciate this scene. So many movies spend all the time in the world making it seem like heels are the hardest thing in the world, but almost never mention makeup or anything else.
This movie even has her have difficultly putting on a bra. Makes sense. She is doing it from the back, which takes some practice and no one was around to teach her the trick of doing it in the front, then simply turning the bra around. Of course this movie absolutely couldn’t do that because Anne Heywood may have put up with binding for the film, but she isn’t going to have chest reconstruction surgery. Although, they do use a male stand-in later for a brief shot, but that doesn’t count because the movie will also show her with a woman’s figure for one scene even though there’s no mention of hormones.
There’s another limitation too caused by hiring a genetic girl for the role. Unless we are going to put fake hair on her legs and arms, then we really can’t show her shave them without breaking the illusion.
Let me just tell you now that they don’t show a fake penis unlike more recent films and TV Shows have. Thank God! Anyone who has or has had one only needs to see that fake penis twice and the illusion is broken. Unless the film uses multiple fake penises, which I haven’t seen done, then the movie has a penis that will look identical every single time it’s shown. The penis don’t work that way.
Finally she’s ready! Meet Wendy Ross.
That Girl! Unfortunately, this film will tell her she’s not what every girl should be till the unfortunate ending.
She goes around town and seems to pass just fine. She’s a little nervous about her voice, but that doesn’t appear to be a problem. Even a police officer calls her “Miss”. Then those damn visual metaphors attack again.
Hmm…I had no idea that the UK had a large giant female population in the 1970s. Think this is going to lead to anything? Well, you’re out of luck. All that happens is a couple of guys who were clearly just about 10 years early to appear in Fulci’s The New York Ripper (1982) and Gorris’ A Question of Silence (1982) scare her, causing her to run into the “Ladies Room”. Nothing happens in there. No bathroom usage. She just washes her hands and says something that is incomprehensible to a woman in there. I think she is saying “driving a truck”, but that makes no sense and it is just a guess.
After a few more lines to remind us men are pigs and all that, we get this shot to make sure you don’t forget feminism.
Can’t leave out the novel that is credited with starting the second wave of feminism which had people like Gloria Steinem referring to trans women as…don’t want to spoil the ending.
Wendy gets herself a room adjoining with another girl in the house of a woman named Margaret (Jill Bennett). Margaret is married to man named Philip (Philip Bond) and works as a teacher. She is friendly with a man named Frank (Michael Coles) as well. I’m still confused about his character in relation to Margaret. I get the impression she is or wants to have an affair with him…maybe…this movie can be a little tough. What I’m not confused about is this shot.
It’s not uncommon for a trans woman or a trans man to start dressing in the “appropriate” clothing, but go over the top at the start. That’s my story of the prom dresses. However, this will be a running thing throughout the film to differeniate Wendy from other women. Note that by comparison, she looks like a 1950s housewife/hausfrau next to this clearly modern day 1970s woman. It’s the girl she’s living next to.
Think maybe the hausfrau comment is too much. Don’t worry, cause in one of the scenes almost immediately after this Margaret says the word herself to describe herself while serving drinks at a party. She also says that Wendy is “all a front” to Frank. I don’t think she actually knows, but the line is dropped in there anyways the second Wendy pays attention to Frank. Oh, and then she says, “The only thing that sets Wendy apart from us is she has a private income.”
I know all this can be chalked up to general cattiness if you will over a guy they are both interested in, but it all kind of weaves together into something that doesn’t go down all that well. Then we get this scene.
Basically the scene is there to remind us that Margaret is very much a feminist. She talks down about women who are pretty and dumb as happy to be considered inferior, but that if you show any independence or a mind of your own that you’ll be determined as unfeminine. Okay, so she’s a little angry. So of course they have Wendy respond that she likes bras and wouldn’t mind depending. In other words, they make sure you know how much Wendy stands in contrast to Margaret. Margaret responds to what Wendy says by telling her that she’s a “strange girl”. Don’t worry, we’re getting to the wonderful ending, but first another assault by a visual metaphor.
Wendy goes to get a job. What kind of a job you might ask? A beautician. Why? We know she has plenty of experience in other areas since we saw her in a business position earlier. Yes, I’m aware that in Boy Meets Girl (2014) she does fashion. Yes, I’m aware that in Orange Is The New Black they have Laverne Cox doing the other girls’ hair. However, this follows immediately after she’s called strange and all but unacceptable by Margaret. She doesn’t get the job. Then the film goofs.
That is a woman’s figure. A genetic male’s body doesn’t get into that shape without hormones, which this film has given us no indication to tell us she’s on. In fact, later she is told by a doctor that her thinking she is growing breasts is imaginary. That is also when they use a male stand-in to emphasize that fact, which also has a straight up and down figure.
By the way, she’s tucking in this scene. I use a gaff personally. It’s basically a strong pair of panties that pulls down, flattens, and also in the process, pops your testicles back into your body. Some use surgical tape to hold the penis between the legs. An example of that on film is in the Danish movie A Soap (2006). This is the first time I’ve seen tucking done this way by what appears to be her wrapping everything in a gauze of some sort. Whatever works for you. The penis is the primary issue, not the testicles. They really do just pop away. Heck, Sumo wrestlers do that before a match to protect them.
Time to visit Sis! I love that when Wendy’s sister calls her Roy, she responds by saying that she’ll call her Sam then. Oh, and Sis does mess up once after being told that and immediately is met with the name Sam. Notice again, the strong difference in clothes. Her sister even digs into her about how she looks. Sis even suggests a cure to which Wendy says, “I am cured.” Doesn’t dig into me, but the correct response would be to say I was never sick. Gone too long without a visual metaphor?
The sister brings up that women’s clothes are similar to men’s clothes nowadays. Wendy says that she doesn’t care. Wendy says, “If women’s clothes were made out of old sacking. I’d want to wear them.” Again, that feminist stuff slipping in here by making her seem superficial and not a real woman for wanting to wear stereotypically feminine clothes. And again in contrast to a cisgender woman in modern 1970s clothes who even has a baby to prove she’s a genetic girl.
Now we get Frank acting like a jerk. It’s relatively light-hearted actually, but of course Wendy is deathly afraid of anyone finding out. Then it gets dark literally and figuratively.
Tossing down a lamp she seems furious that she is attracted to a man. She says nasty things about herself such as being fake, a bitch, and insane.
That scene ends quickly and she tries to borrow money from her sister to go see a doctor. She asks her sister to not tell the baby about her. She says to just let the baby believe what she sees. She gives a nice speech here about not committing any crimes or doing anything wrong. Of course she shouldn’t have to say that or specifically mention she isn’t having any kind of sexual relations. She does say that though.
Now we meet the doctor. We are very near the end of the film.
You could probably do a whole post picking apart only this part of the film if you wanted to. I don’t.
The doctor is not all bad by any means. However, he basically does do two things:
1. Makes it clear that nothing will make her a real woman. By that I mean someone who will 100% pass as a genetic girl even under the scrutiny of a man.
2. That it will take a long time and a lot of work before she will be granted the chance to have bottom surgery. This is an area that is a difficult thing. This can be blatant gatekeeping. Other people deciding your life against your will. However, this is not something I believe should be tossed aside completely either. It is important for the person involved to be given a chance to basically vet themselves. For example, a lot of trans women don’t have bottom surgery. They just decide it’s not important to them. Same goes for trans men. Watch the movie Mr. Angel (2013) about the male porn star Buck Angel. If you come away with nothing else, it’s that Buck loves his vagina. Also, you are asking surgeons to permanently alter your body in a rather significant way. We aren’t talking about a boob job here. We’re talking about something that if done in haste could put you in a David Reimer situation. He was a boy that lost his penis in a botched circumcision, had his parents told to raise him as a girl, figured it out, transitioned back, there’s a book, he went on Oprah, and then killed himself. I think some of this is okay, but it often can be taken way too far and push people to take drastic actions. In this case, she is told that it’s going to take a full year of being analyzed.
She leaves and goes to pack. She has a line here that says: “Is the point of no return the only point.” I read this as meaning she is considering that she doesn’t have to have surgery to be a real woman. However, she then follows that with lines about how she could wake up one morning and find she’s a middle aged man. The gist is that the surgery is that important to her, but she seems to have given up even if that means being a woman only in her own head. She also mentions about not buying more clothes because it means living beyond her means and her sex. Again the feminist thing there.
Now Frank enters the room. This part alone is tough to sit through. What’s weird is that they really haven’t established a relationship on his end. We get Wendy’s side, but he’s barely been in the movie. He tries to kiss her to strongly tell her how much he loves her and to not leave. She is into it at first, then becomes repulsed by herself. She doesn’t believe anyone can really love her. They don’t really make it clear at first, but Frank glances down slightly, then gets violent. He kicks her where it hurts. She goes down and takes a mirror with her which breaks. Here’s the ending…sort of.
She appears to cut off her genitals with a shard of glass. I mentioned Gloria Steinem before. She and other feminists of her time referred to trans women as people who mutilate themselves. That’s not all she said either. I don’t care to go into that any further. It’s a huge mess even to this day.
However, I did say “sort of” for a reason. The movie is still going.
That’s right! She’s alive! Didn’t bleed out or anything. Suddenly she’s just in a hospital bed where she acts like that was a dream or maybe wasn’t. She says, “She was confused for a moment”. She says, “It was about a year ago she woke up in a bed like this.” Regardless, the doctor tells her the operation was a success and that he’ll check in again with her later. He calls her “Miss Ross”.
We now cut to a regular room and find that she has a proper passport now. She’s not in a hospital. Then she says, “I must always remember. How lucky I am to be a girl.” And cut to the end of Working Girl (1988)…
as the camera zooms out from the window till it stops and the credits roll. Yes, I know that’s also the ending of King Vidor’s The Crowd (1928).
So if I am reading this right. She tried to cut off her genitals, but failed and survived. She had bottom surgery, which made her a real woman in the eyes of the British government. Then she ends the film by saying how lucky she is to be a girl? What? You mean as opposed to the men who she said earlier were made in God’s image which he screwed up? This was supposed to be a transgender movie, right? It certainly has a lot of the elements, but there really is this constant anti-man thing going on here. It’s more like the story of a woman who is trapped in a man’s world. She tries to become a woman be merely adorning herself with the appearance of a woman. She is berated for not essentially being a modern woman/feminist. The person who ultimately drives her to a suicidal action is a man. Then she wakes up with female genitalia, accepted as a woman, and says to herself that she must remember she is lucky not to finally be living as the gender she is, not to be accepted as woman, or anything that makes sense. She says she must remember she is lucky not to be a man.
And to drive all this home about her being lucky not to be a man.
She says the line after she picks up and looks at the picture of, to the best of my knowledge, her dead mother. The mother she said her father drove to death.
What I do love about all this is that the movie with the ending like this is quite similar to A Clockwork Orange that came out one year prior to this film. The two books are separated by 4 years. Alex has an apparent disease and is given a superficial cure that opens him up to hatred by society and in the end is driven to a suicidal action that truly cures him. In his case it returned him to his previous state. However, the book actually has an additional 21st chapter where Alex decides to give up his violent ways. In I Want What I Want, a woman with an apparent disease gives herself a superficial cure that opens her up to hatred by society and in the end is driven to a suicidal action that truly cures her. Yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a little borrowing going on here.
I’d be really remiss if I didn’t mention that according to the review of the film inside the DVD box it says that the director was quoted as saying: “I am known to be difficult, British, homosexual and expensive and whilst I can, with modified rapture, admit to the first three charges, the last is deeply wounding.” Also according to that review, the author of the book Geoff Brown wrote only one other book which was about a schizophrenic. Both things could have played a role in how this film turned out.
You can say a lot of things about this movie, the DVD itself, the box, the reviews, my own review, etc. What you can’t say though is that Anne Heywood didn’t give it her all here. She did. I may not like what I saw in the film, but she did a good job with very difficult material.
I don’t recommend the film. I just can’t. But if you think you can handle it, then just like Let Me Die A Woman, it’s a historical curiosity.
Through the Shattered Lens 