Christina Gives "Teaching Mrs Tingle" a D

Three teens in a pickle (Coughlan, Holmes, Watson)

Three teens hold their insufferable teacher hostage for a few days because they injured her with an arrow and are afraid she's gonna squeal on them.

Watson holding Chekhov's bow and arrow.

If this premise sounds silly and childish, it's because it is.  At the same time, it did get me wondering how I would respond if I was in a similar situation as goody-goody Leigh Ann (Holmes).  I'd like to think I'd draw the line a little further back than she did.

I actually thought this was an adaptation of a Lois Duncan book at first.  Then I realized I was thinking of Killing Mr. Griffin.  And possibly every other storyline where naughty students turn the tables on their cantankerous teachers.  Not sure this movie has anything new to offer.  And aside from a small role for Michael Mckean of Spinal Tap fame, a solid Exorcist impression from Marisa Coughlan and a delightfully wicked (I'm perhaps exaggerating a smidge) performance from Helen Mirren, this movie has nothing going for it.  Unless you're watching it for Watson or Holmes, though I'm not sure either one of them is enough to carry a movie in 2021.  Maybe you just like watching little smarty-pants girls get corrected on their misusage of the word "irony."  If so, I respect that.

Holmes looking conflicted.

I want to add one more note.  The movie opens with one of the lead girls grabbing a guy and kissing him without his consent.  I thought to myself, "Whoa!  Was that in the book?"  Back when I mistakenly thought Lois Duncan wrote the storyline.  About thirty seconds later, Harvey Weinstein's name flashes on the screen under the heading of "executive producer."  That should sum this movie up in a nutshell.

Oh, and when I watched this on the Paramount channel on Amazon Prime, the subtitles were from Scream.  That got old fast, and I eventually turned them off, having to rely solely on my 38-year-old ears.  That was a little uncool.  So beware.

Christina Reviews the Netflix Movie When We First Met

If you are lucky enough to never have experienced unrequited feelings for another, or if you're someone with a short memory, then this movie won't mesh well with you. But if you've ever had to stumble and make mistakes on your journey to find love, and you don't take yourself too seriously, this might be a somewhat enjoyable film.  There's nothing new you'll learn.  But Adam Devine is always fun to watch.  

Christina Reviews Boys and Girls

Forlani and Prinze play friends-to-lovers in this
little-known dumpster fire called Boys and Girls

I found Boys and Girls (starring Freddie Prinze Jr. and Claire Forlani) on Amazon Cinemax.  I like FPJ.  He's cute in a non-threatening way.  So I decided to check it out.  About three minutes in, I realized I'd seen this movie before.  But I'd completely forgotten.  You know that's got to be a bad sign.  

It didn't take me long to figure out why I'd blocked the movie from my memory.

Boys and Girls starts with two twelve-year-olds meeting for the first time when they get placed next to each other on a plane.  The girl is the sort who gives TMI to complete strangers.  It's an embarrassing, awkward first meeting.

Jennifer and Ryan meeting at age 12 on a plane

That could have been the end of it, but then they get thrown together again when they run into each other at a football game in high school.  I'm not sure how they didn't know they went to the same school before that night.  Maybe this was an away game?  They have a similar conversation at about age eighteen as they had on the plane at age twelve.  "You're dumb, no, you're dumb, na na na."  I'm thinking the writer is of the mindset that the more nasty they are to each other early on in the movie, the more fulfilling the love scenes will be later on when they do come (freudian slip).  So we're treated to the antics of a couple of two-year-olds.

Anyway, they keep running into each other over the next few years.  For example, he's dating her roommate, yadda yadda.  At this point, I'm just fast-forwarding through the movie, not invested in it at all.   I'm pretty sure I watched the whole thing years ago.  Once was more than enough.

I decided to check out Ebert's review, hoping for a little vindication.  I was a tad miffed that he gave this dumpster fire more stars than Hocus Pocus.  But, other than that, I agreed with the general content of his critique.  Here's is a quote from him that's spot-on:

"[The two main characters] are so lovable that we earnestly wish they'd grow up and develop more interesting and complex personalities. We are reminded of the theory that American society prolongs adolescence far beyond its natural life-span. If these characters were French and engaging in the same dialogue and behavior, we would guess their age at about 13."

Actually, I'll correct him on one point.  We'd guess their ages at about two.  So, I give this movie two stars.  I'm feeling generous. 

This isn't even good fluff for Valentine's Day.  

Christina Reviews Summer Rental

I first developed a thing for John Candy while re-watching Home Alone in my 30s.  There was a sincerity about him and an expressiveness that drew me in.  Then I re-watched Uncle Buck, and I fell in love.  And so I watched Summer Rental for no other reason than because he was in it.

I thought there were some decent scenes early on and some funny moments.  My favorite line of his was something like, "Always listen to gas station attendants.  They know where to eat."

He carries this movie on his capable shoulders.  But I eventually lost interest in the second half.  I would still say it was a good movie because of John Candy.  

Christina Deconstructs the Fantasy of Something Borrowed

The movie Something Borrowed (based on the book by Emily Giffin) is about a very toxic friendship that never should have lasted past high school. Rachel (Goodwin) is miserable in the relationship because Darcy (Hudson) makes her feel insignificant. Darcy is essentially an alcoholic with no regard for others' feelings. And in all fairness, Rachel isn't honest with Darcy, so she kind of brought much of her misery on herself. She probably doesn't feel safe enough to speak up because this is a toxic relationship, as already stated.

Early on, Rachel has a fling with Darcy's soon-to-be-husband.  But it's revealed over the course of the movie that Rachel met Dex first and even had a crush on him in law school before casually introducing him to her friend.  One could potentially make the argument that Darcy, in fact, was the one who initially created this precedent for overstepping boundaries in their relationship by assuming that it was OK to date her best friend's hot guy friend just because her friend didn't beg and plead with her not to steamroll right over her by going after him herself.  At the same time, it's interesting that Rachel didn't do more to discourage the relationship and all but handed Dex (Egglesfield) over to her "friend" on a silver platter because a woman like Darcy does not need permission to go after what she wants. If this was a real life scenario, I could see Rachel confiding her feelings to Darcy and Darcy going after Dex anyway. But that's not the story we got. For whatever reason, the screenwriter (and from what I've read of the book, the author as well) holds back when it comes to revealing just what kind of emotionally abusive person Darcy is capable of being, probably so we can continue to buy the premise that there's a real relationship at stake here, even though, on a deeper level, we must know there's something rotten in Denmark. This unease is important because of what comes later. But in the meantime, a friendship at stake provides conflict.

Ideally, Rachel would have told Darcy that their friendship was stifling her. Dex would have told Darcy the same. They would have severed ties with the woman they never really cared about and been free to pursue a relationship with each other in a more honest fashion. If it had gone like this, the movie would have been over in ten minutes. Maybe twenty.

This is a movie that thrives on phony conflict. And on a fantasy of a guy who liked the lonely, insecure girl all along. And all because this is what the average female viewer wants most to hear. Most girls know what it's like to feel threatened by other women who seem to have everything go their way; this movie is a gift to them. It's the validation they crave. It tells them, "That guy you like always liked you back and only formed a toxic relationship with that drunk, perky blond because he didn't realize you were interested. If only he'd known, things would have worked out better for you." Isn't that a nice thought? I can enjoy watching a shy, insecure girl get her dream guy after years of not feeling good enough, but, at the same time, I see this movie for the fantasy it is. Yeah, it's awful that Rachel had to get her happy ending by stepping on another's toes. Even though Darcy is a completely unsympathetic character and not much of a friend. And even though I never could figure out why Dex was engaged to her either because he doesn't even seem to like her! That's not surprising, though. This movie isn't meant to show people acting logically. 

Once again, it's a nice fantasy with a fake moral dilemma that's only a moral dilemma if you buy the premise that these characters should feel any loyalty to the person who clearly doesn't belong in their lives to begin with and whom they would be so much happier without. And that's why we can feel satisfied by the ending when the ending finally comes around after an hour and a half of posturing. At the end of the day, nothing really important was lost. Everyone is better off.

Christina Reviews *Yes Man*

         Yes Man is essentially Liar Liar.  Only, instead of having to tell the truth all the time, Jim Carrey’s character goes to some kind of weird seminar and is told that he is now obligated to say “Yes” to everything, from giving a homeless person a lift home to sleeping with an unattractive older woman.  As you can see, the things he is required to do get progressively worse.  Sleeping with the unattractive older woman is, I think, the only thing he says no to.  And boy does he ever suffer for his disobedience!

        Anyway, what can I say?  I like Jim Carrey.  I like Zooey Deschanel.  She looks like Kate Perry, who I don't really like, but that's beside the point.

        
        Three and a half stars.

Christina Reviews *While You Were Sleeping*

         This is a silly little Sandra Bullock movie about a woman who falls in love with a complete stranger and then finds herself in the middle of an hilarious misunderstanding. 

          One day, the stranger gets beaten up and left for unconscious on the train tracks where Sandra’s character works.  She saves his life.

        A little while later, he’s in the hospital, and a nurse asks Sandra’s character if she is related to the man.  Sandra’s character mutters under her breath how he’s only the man she’s going to marry.  Now, in the real world, the nurse would call the police and have Sandra’s character arrested for being weird and talking to herself.  In the movie, the nurse jumps to the conclusion that Sandra’s character must be the man’s fiancee.

       When the comatose man’s family hears about his new fiancee, they are overjoyed.  Sandra’s character can’t bring herself to dash their hopes.

        And this is the basic premise of the story.  The situation is made complicated (or made simple---take your pick) by the fact that the comatose man has a brother played by Bill Pullman….

        Oh.  I’m sorry.  I thought you would all take the hint.  You see, I say “Bill Pullman,”  and you’re supposed to conjure up the image of two sweat-drenched lovers rolling around in the sack together  (or at least fantasizing about doing so since cheating on a comatose stranger is absolutely unforgivable, or didn’t you know?)  I guess Bill Pullman doesn’t inspire those kinds of fantasies after all.  Damn it to hell!

        I won’t give away the ending, but suffice it to say, it’s predictable.

        In the European version of this movie, the characters would all sit around in a hospital room, smoking cigarettes, drinking coffee and bemoaning the vagaries of life.  It would be incredibly depressing.  And the man in the coma would inevitably die. And it would be an exercise in tedium and monotonous navel-gazing.  But at least it would be somewhat honest.

       While You Were Sleeping, on the other hand, is as American as it gets.  Nora Ephron could have written the script.  Wait, did she?

      No wonder the other countries hate us.  It’s not because we take them to war.  It’s because of movies like this.