Under The Mistletoe

Under the Mistletoe was embarrassing to watch. Like, more embarrassing to watch than when I walked in on my grandparents and just stood there staring for about 20 minutes because I was too paralyzed with disgust and humiliation to flee.

The assholes who made this film, amazingly enough, made me feel like an asshole for watching it. Props to the actors though - they valiantly did what they could with this fetid schlock the writer(s) call a script.

Spoilers abound in this review.

Let’s start with the positives in this “compliment sandwich” review. (I always review by way of the compliment sandwich to placate Amazon reviewers in hopes that they keep their ire firmly shoved in their pie holes. The internet never turns as ugly as it does when a critic pans a wholesome “family” movie that Amazon-ite housewives and pastors bafflingly endorse with heated passion.)

So, the positive? Well, Under the Mistletoe…was, um, Christmassy! And I was in the mood for a Christmas movie, so good for the producers and creative team on that one! As a side note, it may seem odd that I’m praising a Christmas movie for being Christmassy, but I was recently tricked into Amazon-ing Christmas Lodge when trying to get into the Christmas mood. Not only was it horrible, schlocky, and preachy, it had nearly nothing to do with Christmas. I felt cheated and used after that one.

Anyway - back to Under the Mistletoe. The second thing I didn’t mind too much about this film was that although the plot is well-trod fare, it is still a very touching story: A tragic accident rips apart a devoted couple, and the dead spouse wants to make sure his family is okay before moving on. Touching, no? In fact I may have gotten misty eyed when the wife, Susan (Jaime Ray Newman), can finally see and say goodbye to her ghost spouse, Tom (Conan Graham). As a side note, Conan Graham looks like an unholy effigy of John Henson, made more bizarre with an overly prominent, unnatural set of glowing white teeth.

I’m no sentimental fool, but stories about the death of a good and devoted partner/spouse hit me right in the feels.

The negatives?

First of all, this dismal attempt at entertainment is an amazingly bad rip-off of Sleepless in Seattle. In Mistletoe, son Jonathan (Burkely Duffield ) wants to set up his parent with a new partner via a radio-call in show after his other parent dies. Like I said, Sleepless in Seattle.

To be fair, I understand that creating and writing an original story is really, really hard. Trust me – I’ve tried. Consequently I understand when I encounter a re-hashed story – there’s only so many plots out there, ya know? But, for all that is holy, if you must lift a plot, don’t rework a really popular, well-known and well-made movie. And if you’re an idiot and decide to anyway, please, make damn sure your masterwork is better than the original. Or, at least, make it tolerable. Mistletoe is neither.

This straight-from-Sleepless plot brings me to the second gripe: Sweet Louise, was it creepy how into his mother's love life Jonathan was? Seriously, there are some issues there. His involvement bordered on Oedipal. For instance, when Jonathan is drafting a letter in the guise of a suitor in order to woo his mother, ghost Tom tells him to “Check your notes. You had some great ideas.” You took notes?

But, it gets worse. Jonathan continually peeks out windows and around corners to spy on his mom making out, and when he confirms that she is sucking face, an unnerving smile slithers onto his. An “Oooooh yeah!” type of head nodding is also often involved. Blech.

This kid loves parental PDA more than most kids love dinosaur-shaped food. For example, to establish that Tom and Susan are, in fact, a devoted couple for the three seconds that Tom is alive in the film, viewers are treated to a solid two minutes of Tom fondling Susan while the family decorates the Christmas tree. *Shudder.* While Jonathan rejoices in this wholly unnecessary and nauseating display of parental affection, I busied myself with concocting seven different ways to skewer out my eyeballs

However, the most heinous display of Jonathan being a little too invested in his mother’s carnal pleasures serves as the emotional finale of the film. While Susan and her new beau kiss on an ice hockey rink and the world inexplicably rejoices, Jonathan constructs a mistletoe-hanging device out of nowhere. Seriously, he’s in the middle of a skating rink and can’t fight the urge to hang the romantic botanical above his mother’s head. Makes sense…? The camera lingers on Jonathan’s pervy and excited look as he delights in the make-out session for way too long, holding aloft the hockey stick. Once the awkward shot is finally over and the camera, blessedly, moves on, it inexplicably and surprisingly pans back to Jonathan’s creeper face once more after I had just thanked the almighty that it was over.

To make this scene even worse than a splinter wedged deep under a fingernail, this unnerving display is preceded by a confusing and ill-fitting shot of Jonathan’s teammate chomping on gum. I was confused by it at the time, but after the whole thing was over and I, to my chagrin, found myself thinking about it, it made more sense. Turns out the creative team really wanted the audience to understand from whence the sticky substance holding the mistletoe to the hockey stick originated. Listen, Hallmark, at this point in the film logic is so far gone I don’t think anyone would question how the random mistletoe is attached to the hockey stick. I would imagine the audience is more concerned with where the hell did the mistletoe come from, or possibly what in Sweet Jebus’ name is Jonathan’s motivation here? I can only guess he was motivated to furnish mistletoe at some point because of the film’s title?

Speaking of boundless leaps of logic, let’s move on to this film’s inane radio show/contest plot device. How in holy holly did Susan’s contest entry, which was penned by Jonathan, get picked as the winner for this contest? The radio DJ gushes over Susan’s entry, praising it for being unique, daring…media gold! Um, the entire entry was something to the effect of “I’m a lady who likes skiing and being outdoors.” Ghost Tom comes up with the completely original idea to add that Susan enjoys tennis as well. That there’s a one-in-a-million woman who blazes her own path. Brilliant!  Also, Susan’s boss, a newspaper editor, insists that she continue in the radio’s match-making contest because he thinks it makes for a good news story and thinks her dry-as-geriatric-sex interviews are feature-story gold. Huh?

Secondly, that radio show host seems like a very hot serial killer, no? Firstly, people that attractive don't work in radio. Secondly, why was she trying to sound so sexy on a talk radio station? Listeners don’t want to hear porn voice after Rush Limbagh wraps up, ya know? And the DJ, although sequestered in a booth and not seen by her listeners, sports webcam-starlet looks, complete with sultry eyes and puckered lips while interviewing Susan. I wasn’t sure whether I should be turned on or laugh out loud. Yes, Radio Host sure did bring some much needed levity to the movie, although I’m not sure that was the director’s intent. 

But the comedic gold mined from the radio contest doesn’t end there. Let’s next ponder how the hell Susan was so smitten with that Neanderthal contest date when he showed up at the restaurant? Greg (Russell Porter) was terrifying to look at. That 80’s heartthrob hair? Those sunken-in eyes? Gollum’s a catch compared to this dude. Greg’s brains didn’t seem to compensate for his lousy looks either. Entering a radio dating show was the best plan he could come up with to pay back a loan shark? After that shocking plot twist, my brain just halted and I ceased understanding anything at all about the world around me. And the scene with near-lingerie-clad Susan and Neanderthal Greg dancing in the living room? Please bleach my brain.

And finally, during the big finale when Susan has to pick a radio contest finalist on air, she backs out of the contest and forfeits her share of the $50,000. Whhhat? I think the writers were going for “romance” with this twist: Susan decides she really likes Jonathan’s school counselor (!!) Kevin (Michael Shanks) instead of any of the radio show contestants. So, she ditches the contest. It’s dumbfounding. Susan could have chosen one of the contestants, – any of them - received the cash prize, and have been on her merry way, while picking up Kevin’s school counselor (!!) for some boot knockin’ in a new, more modest dress she bought with the extra cash now stuffed in her pocket. It's not like she had to marry or even continue to date any of the contestant she chose. There were, literally, no consequences, stakes or drama to this “contest.”

As a side note, and as casually mentioned earlier, Susan chose Jonathan’s school counselor to…love? Date? I don’t know. This is the same counselor who went shopping with Jonathan, gave him a star spot on his ice hockey team without Jonathan ever doing any work to contribute to the team, and let Jonathan sleep on his couch. We all know that counselors should not get that involved in their students’ lives. Right? Like, I feel like I’m pointing out the obvious, but this movie has me doubting myself. And finally, Kevin and Susan never really spent any getting-to-know you time together, did they? Susan shows up at his office a few times harried and aloof, and Kevin basically adopts Jonathan and babysits him constantly while Susan dates, so where did this over-the-top love for him come from?

Now that we’ve parsed the two main categories of horrors found in Under the Mistletoe, I’m still left with some miscellaneous tidbits I’m compelled to discuss. Firstly, how clueless was Susan determinedly assuming that Kevin (Michael Shanks) was married? Continually and pig-headedly? That doesn't make sense? I knew wifey was dead from the get-go. Like, Susan lets her kid go off shopping with his counselor (!!) without checking up on things to discover that wife wasn’t there? I don't understand.

Oh! I also loved the one-dimensional sassy best friend who was just in Susan’s house all the time and took care of all Susan’s responsibilities, and whom Susan never acknowledges or thanks. I sort of want one of those. Oh! And when did this turn into a sports movie? The film didn’t show Jonathan practice or play the whole movie, so why would we be so invested about whether he makes a goal in this random game? And why the hell were all the hockey moms at the game wooing at the kiss? Why would they care? I certainly didn’t. I don't get it.  

One more! The editing! What the fudge? This was film was edited as if a cat had stepped all over the editing controls, and then the real editor was like "Brilliant!" Man, this was a train wreck. For example, there was an extended scene of Kevin and Jonathan getting out of a car that lasted about five minutes without any dialogue to justify the scene. The “montage” of Susan’s dating adventures was way too choppy. And finally, the WORST OF THE WORST – was a supposedly emotional scene where Susan realizes Jonathan has run away and is desperate to find him. To get the audience to well up, the editors created a scene in which Susan repeatedly screams “Jonathan” while searching the house, shops, the streets, the school. Seriously, it’s just five minutes of her screaming “Jonathan” in different locales. I attribute this vomit-inducing clunker of a scene half to Newman’s horrific acting and half to terrible editing.

And finally, here’s my biggest gripe of all: Husband Tom goes to heaven. Yay! We all get closure – Mom, Son, audience. Touching. Sniff. Sniff. And then he comes back to play hockey. What the hell. So Tom can just come back at any time then? And everyone can see him? So he's not really dead…. And there goes any emotional “oomph” the movie managed to muster.

Why did this movie get such great Amazon reviews again?

P.S.

Here’s a final “positive” to make you forget all about the crap you just watched: Michael Shanks sure is easy on the eyes, no? (ETA! OH NO!! I just had to go to IMDB to find out the actor’s name, and dammit! Michael Shanks was that bozo in that infernal Christmas Lodge movie too!)

Oh, and one more final thought: Never name a character "Lester." NEVER.