Netflix And Chill: Falling For Christmas (2022)

Written and directed by people who largely have a decent amount of experience in the Christmas movie sub-genre (with the exception of Jeff Bonnett, the relatively new writer who helped develop the story idea into the screenplay), Falling For Christmas is the film sold on the idea that we get Lindsay Lohan in a Christmas movie. That's all you need to know. It was certainly enough to motivate me into making this a priority in my viewing schedule.

Lohan plays the spoiled and selfish Sierra Belmont, a young woman who is due to receive a marriage proposal from her narcissistic "influencer" boyfriend, Tad Fairchild (George Young). It doesn't quite go to plan though, and both Sierra and Tad end up rolling down snowy slopes in different directions. Tad ends up in the company of Ralph (Sean Dillingham) at his isolated shack. Sierra ends up being found by Jake Russell (Chord Overstreet), a young man struggling to keep his hotel lodge business solvent. She's also lost her memory, which leads to her recuperating at the lodge, where it soon becomes apparent that she doesn't know much about housekeeping. But she and Jake get along very well, and his daughter, Avy (Olivia Perez), takes a liking to her.

Janeen Damian, making her directorial debut after years spend producing this kind of fare, knows what she's doing here (basically reworking Overboard in a snowy setting, with the more problematic elements removed), and she makes sure to stick close to a box-checking script, written by Bonnett and Ron Oliver (who actually started his writing AND directing career decades ago with the second and third movies in the enjoyable Prom Night series). Nobody watching this will discover anything to surprise them, but there are a few more proper chuckles than I expected, mainly involving Tad and Ralph.

Lohan is suited to this kind of entertainment. She's still very easy to enjoy onscreen, and it's nice to see her in something that isn't trying to sell itself on the notion of showing her in a very different light (as happened with The Canyons, for example). She also convincingly portrays a good connection with Overstreet, who has apparently studied every Christmas movie ever made to refine his portrayal of the safest and blandest male romantic interest ever. Young and Dillingham are fun together, and Young is especially good value for every minute he's onscreen, wearing a selection of ridiculous wardrobe choices and always ready to stage a photo for his legion of online followers. Perez is . . . there. She does what is asked of her, but I'd have to single out her performance as particularly irritating, even when compared to other typical performances of this type (overly earnest and ready to put on the big eyes at the drop of a bauble). Alejandra Flores is the kindly gran, and I guess does okay, and Jack Wagner is the rich and powerful Beauregard Belmont, Sierra's father, and the safety net that viewers see Sierra has had all her life.

This is exactly what it sets out to be, perfectly pleasant seasonal entertainment. It just happens to have one of the unintentionally creepy Santa figures I have seen in some time. Creepy Santa aside, this is a nice springboard for Lohan to use as a more focused return to some proper movies. And if you don't think this counts as a proper movie, I urge you to try getting all the way through the dire Among The Shadows. Lohan shouldn't have had to feature in that dross, and I'll be happy if she does even just one film like this every year that saves her from ever having to be put back in that position.

6/10

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

Malignant (2021)

There are some things to consider about the conversations people have been having about Malignant, the latest horror movie from James Wan. First of all, the fact that it is a very divisive film isn’t necessarily a negative. Whether you end up loving or hating this, kudos to Wan for taking such a huge swing with it. Secondly, someone having a different opinion of it does not mean they didn’t “get it”, even if the film has a lot in there that will be recognised mainly by older horror fans who are more likely to spot the many influences, from giallo to grindhouse films. Third, you can enjoy a movie without loving absolutely everything it does. Despite what the internet may be telling us, reactions still do not have to be absolutely weighted to one end or the other.

Now we can get to the film itself. Annabelle Wallis plays Madison Mitchell, a woman who starts to experience visions of violent murders. Knowing a bit too much, and the victim of an attack herself, the police start to consider Madison as a suspect, especially when it turns out that she has connections to the victims. Does this mean that Madison’s childhood friend, a presence nobody else would ever see, has reappeared?

Although it’s not just Wallis onscreen, with supporting turns from Maddie Hasson, George Young, Michole Briana White, it’s a film that stays so focused on her character, and people are asked to act in a certain way, most of the cast are secondary to the vision of Wan. Simply there to be puppeteered, ironically. It’s hard to judge people for performances that have been directed in a very specific way. Although Marina Mazepa deserves a special mention for her outstanding physical performance.

The script, written by Akela Cooper (from a story thrashed out in conjunction with Wan and Ingrid Bisu), is pretty terrible. It’s the combination of bad writing and weak acting that has led to so many people saying that Wan has delivered a wild American giallo, but that claim forgives a lot of mis-steps. There’s no style here good enough to feel faithful to the giallo flicks it wants to emulate, a lot of it overshadowed by horribly unnecessary CGI, and the bonkers ending is disappointingly telegraphed from the earliest scenes (and giallo fans will know that most of the maddest endings they have enjoyed have been anything but predictable).

As inevitable as the final act is, it is also where Wan pulls out all of the stops and presents an audaciously fun sequence that makes the whole film worth your time. Perhaps that is a sign that he is more at home wallowing in gore and carnage than trying to be stylish and homaging giallo flicks, but it certainly allows him to provide nods, some bigger than others, to the works of Frank Henenlotter, Stephen King, Brian De Palma, and his good friend, Leigh Whannell. I don’t mind this pick ‘n’ mix approach when the end result is such a hoot, and nobody will feel bored by the time the end credits roll.

Malignant is good, sometimes really good, but the first hour or so isn’t. You have some disappointingly weak death scenes, characters it is hard to really care about, a score from Joseph Bishara that doesn’t really work alongside the visuals most of the time, and constant overuse of CGI when practical effects would have added to the overall feel that Wan was aiming for. That final act makes up for a multitude of small sins, however, and how far it pushes the envelope towards real cinematic insanity makes it one of the strangest horrors to be pushed into the mainstream in a very long time. Which makes it worth your time and support.

7/10

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