Wednesday, 12 December 2018
Yule Love It: Christmas Time (2017)
Directed by Jake Van Wagoner. Written by Jake Van Wagoner and Maclain Nelson. Starring Jake Van Wagoner and Maclain Nelson, who play two brothers named . . . Jake and Maclain. The signs were all there, warning me to stay clear of this one, but I just didn't notice them from the very beginning.
A cute intro sequence covers the backstory that you need to know, for the most part. Jake and Maclain were very young when their parents died, and then Jake started to time travel, or so he told people when asked about his whereabouts (whenabouts?), which left Maclain alone and upset when he needed his brother most. Having not been in touch with one another for some time, Maclain's partner, Clare (played by Clare Niederpruem) decides that the brothers should be pushed into spending Christmas together at a fairly isolated cabin. Can they make up for those lost years, and will Jake insist that he can still travel through time?
The first thing that you notice about Christmas Time, once that fun intro sequence finishes, is that it's cheap. It feels cheap. Not necessarily the cheapest you will ever see, and the audio is of a decent quality (often the downfall of many a low-budget film), but you can definitely tell from the very beginning that this is a film made without a lot of money put into it. Necessity can be the mother of invention, especially when people are making movies, but this is one occasion when I think a bigger budget could have really helped, perhaps interspersing the main storyline with some flashbacks/hallucinations.
The second thing you notice about Christmas Time is that the leads are okay, but nothing more. I spent the whole film wishing that Jake was being played by Tyler Labine, for example, and Maclain could have been played by anyone able to do the uptight, exasperated, everyday Joe. Clare is surprisingly patient and sweet, and again could have been played by a number of other actresses. Nobody is awful, fortunately, but this premise could have been turned into something much more enjoyable with one or two more familiar faces onscreen. I have seen opinions from some people who liked seeing James Murray onscreen, he plays a therapist trying to help Maclain, but I am unaware of his past work and wasn't impressed by him in this.
The direction is also okay, suffering most from the script that everyone is working from. It's an unfocused work, never making the most of the comedy potential, the family drama, or the maybe/maybe not sci-fi element, and this leads viewers to an ending that is frustrating and a bit rushed when it could have been the satisfying end of an enjoyable journey.
So . . . you have a drama that often doesn't make you care about the characters, a comedy with too few laughs, and a possible sci-fi idea that isn't well-utilised, making the whole thing a disappointment, if not absolutely terrible.
4/10
If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Wild Things: Diamonds In The Rough (2005)
Who knew when Wild Things first arrived on cinema screens that it would spawn a bunch of sequels all built around the exact same structure? This second sequel is once again written by Andy Hurst and Ross Helford (who wrote the screenplay for the previous movie) but the directorial duties are handed over to one Jay Lowi. To be fair to Lowi, Tangled (the 2001 teen-friendly thriller and not the 2011 Disney movie) was a movie at least belonging underneath the same umbrella as this one and showed that Lowi could handle such material.
Serah D'laine and Sandra McCoy are the two young women at the centre of the activities this time around and this time everything seems to revolve around a nice pair of diamonds. There are numerous twists and turns, once again, but the shorter runtime dictates that the plans start to unravel faster than ever before and that the mystery is, once again, nicely wrapped up in time for a number of enjoyable revelations shown during the final credits.
The cast are okay. D'laine and McCoy make up for their lack of any in-built name recognition with an attempt to be a bit raunchier and more willing to shed clothes than Susan Ward and Leila Arcieri were. Dina Meyer is relatively well known and does just fine. Linden Ashby reprises his role from the previous movie and does a bit better this time around. Then we have Brad Johnson and Ron Melendez, both doing what they have to do with their roles though both stuck with weaker characters.
Once again, this is nowhere near as good as the first movie. It's quite dull for most of the runtime and everything just feels a bit . . . . . . . flat. BUT the last-minute revelations are a bit more enjoyable, thanks to being a bit different from the previous pattern, and there's still some fun to be had from the central concept if you're an undemanding viewer not expecting anything great.
4/10
If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do
consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A
subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews

