Reviews

I wrote a gushing review for this film. For some reason, it wasn't published, but it was very positive. I think it's beautifully done, almost every scene could be framed on the wall, it's different, it's original, its messages are important... loved it.

But then I saw what was involved in the making of it. I had no idea that animators would need an actual horse to do all kinds of stunts in order to draw it - I think that shouldn't be neccessary if you're a good animator. But even if it is neccessary - it shouldn't be done. The way the horse was treated was so bad it is at complete odds with Charlie Mackesy's message of kindness. But he was there. He watched and let it happen.

I can never watch it again knowing what actual horses went through to make this animation. So sad.

If people give this an average 6.3, as it stands now, it makes you wonder about the averages of other films. I recently saw both Falling for Christmas and I believe in Santa, the new Netflix Christmas movies. They currently stand at 5.2 and 4.5 respectively. If you compare this to those two, this should definitely have a higher average.

Better, more natural acting. And yes, that includes Jamie/Jennie. I see some people mentioning her eyes, but trust me, if you've just seen I believe in Santa, Jennie's acting is nice and real (indulge me - watch ten minutes of I believe in Santa, I dare you). In my opinion, that more natural acting also applies to the 'restrained' vibe Jamie has in the view of a reviewer. That reviewer said they would expect Jamie "bursting with holiday cheer", but if you expected that, you don't understand the premise. I found it very logical and realistic, her not being an over the top Christmas lover is part of the point of the film, I have no idea what premise would make one expect otherwise. It's this realism, this authenticity, this not overdoing it that appeals to me. The film is Christmassy in a more tasteful way with more natural decorations, not the incredibly tacky plastic AliExpress versions that i see in most new films. Surprised at the criticism about him being hurt by her not telling him; I thought that was well done and logical. If they hadn't been so involved, if it was just a neighbour or something, that hurt would have been misplaced. But dating and continuously talking about the secret Santa and not telling would not feel right to me either, from both perspectives. Nicely shot and produced, with everything looking real, including the shop/office, snow, scenery, etc. (that is one of my biggest issues with Christmas films and a realistic looking film without fake car rides, fake snow, fake backgrounds, fake streets, etc. Immediately gets a few extra points from me). Predictable, yes (I think we want our Christmas movies to be), but not overly corny or over the top. I was afraid people wouldn't respect her wish to remain anonymous, which would surely have happened not only in other Christmas movies but also in real life, because usually others decide what that person wants instead of the person itself, and was very pleased it didn't happen here.

There are only a few small things I would have done differently. The morning show logo is very 'my dad who has just started to use a computer made it'. There's no need to mansplain how crackers work and if you do, do it correctly. Apparently, they were meant to stand underneath mistletoe, but it wasn't mistletoe. It looked like holly but with white berries. The people who surprised the struggling family were standing way too close to the house to not be seen, and the video they supposedly took was done from much closer than that even. But if my only criticisms are these small things, they did well, in my opinion.

Pay it forward this Christmas, everyone.

Let's first try to some good.

It means well and it is indeed very christmassy (even though I'm very surprised that in Colorado, where there surely are more natural decorations to be found, it's all tacky plastic).

It has some good sentiments about Christmas not being about religion, which I agree with. I know that christianity made it about religion, but that was only to squash the existing winter celebrations. I don't like the Christ-bit in the name, but I celebrate the seasonal, winter aspect of it (unfortunately, these sentiments are undermined when the film makes valid points about the difficulties of being a muslim in Denver but then compares that to believing in Santa...).

I thought the two supporting characters acted naturally and added a bit of realism and fun to the proceedings.

I thought the premise was actually nice and has fun and comedic possibilities (that, for me, unfortunately, don't really take off).

I really like a Christmas film with characters this age, including the normalcy of started a new relationship when you're nearing your 50s.

Even though I love this season, I like some of the female lead character's arguments against Christmas, some of them are important, valid points (but one of them, about commercialism, is then undermined by the crazy number of presents under the tree including a new iPhone for an 11-year-old...).

I like the casual mentioning of a vegan hot dog, the inclusivity and other principles that are, in my view, on the right side of history.

So, you'd think that's more than enough to give it more stars. And given the above, I'd love to. But the above are mostly about the things the film is based on, not the actual end product. No matter how good the idea behind it is, it's the execution that also matters when trying to enjoy a film. So here we go.

I just don't think the two leads are very good actors. I've read up on them and they've done a lot so they're clearly well-known professionals, but coming from a person who didn't know them before this film, they came across as newcomers in a straight-to-video and very local production by a well-meaning amateur group.

It is very American. The 4th of July overload the film starts with is difficult to get past and/or not roll your eyes at for some non-Americans. The type of decorations, the way the santa in the mall does his ho-ho-ho's, the cringey drawn out presentation of the mc at the pub quiz... it's almost unbearable to me.

To stress so often that most of the world celebrates Christmas was annoying. It's incorrect. It's about 40%, and that 40% includes every level of participation.

I know this is a horrible thing to say because I'm now criticising some things the actors actually can't do anything about instead of the film itself, but I genuinely couldn't help finding the faces of both leads extremely distracting. I got used to constantly seeing the whites of her bulging, surprised or oddly sharpened eyes. I couldn't get used to the odd manboy thing he's got going on. Sometimes you very briefly think you're looking at 30-year-old pretending to be a teenager in his exaggerated expressions, and then he turns into a sometimes disturbing Hasselhoff-y 70-year-old with too much plastic surgery (I don't think he's had any, that's not what I'm saying, I'm basically saying he seems to have a bit of an ageless face, which can be a good thing but combined with his exaggerated expressions it seems like he's trying too hard to be... what? Young? Cool? His appearance and expressions are so uncomfortable to me that the 'candy from a stranger' joke early on in the film literally felt a bit creepy for me.

I really dislike fakery in decor etc. When it's not needed. Part of this film was shot in a snowy Denver. Was it really that hard to find a front door where they could film the (surprising number of) door-opening scenes with the very obvious fake snowy opposite side of the street? Is it really that hard to make sure everybody dresses in warm winter clothes when a scene is supposedly shot outside on a winter's night, instead of having a few people in thick coats and gloves and others with bare arms and. Is it really that hard to film spectators at a sleigh race at the actual location instead of faking the background? If all these actually WERE real, the cinematography needs serious consideration for next time.

Even though the premise of a boyfriend overly into Christmas with the girlfriend not so much is something I actually like, taking it further, with him actually, literally believing in Santa, is a step too far for me. I'm not against non-realistic Christmas movies, because Christmas itself is fantasy and so is the majority of films about it, but with this film clearly set in a very real, modern world, with the guy not secretly being an elf or something... hm. Unless this is meant to poke fun at flat-earthers and chip-implanting-Gates believers, that is just too silly for me. I like the message of letting people believing what they want to believe, sure, but it's another thing to be o.k. And comfortable with somebody whose core beliefs directly oppose yours (but then again, I'm the kind of person that doesn't understand how you can be in a relationship when one person is an atheist and the other person a creationist...).

As others have commented: one of my original criticisms would have been about the utter lack of authentic chemistry between the two leads, but given the fact that they're married in real life, I'm assuming there's at least a small bit of actual, offscreen chemistry left. How then the onscreen chemistry seems to be lacking to the extent that they feel extremely unlikely to end up together and you actually expect a twist involving at least one of the supporting actors

My standards for Christmas films are low, but even with low standards, I can't go above four stars. That's still better than the monstrosity Lindsay Lohan unfortunately said yes to, so that's something.

The 'special effects', even in situations and actions where special effects shouldn't even be needed, are just so, so bad. I don't understand how that is even possible in 2022. I mean, I would have thought it is more difficult to make them this bad than to make them look decent.

And I'm so tired of girls screaming because they see an animal. I know this time it's part of the material, dumb city girl schtick, but still.

Pressuring somebody into eating bacon and presenting not eating bacon as something that's part of the dumb city girl thick is not ok.

I genuinely can't sympathise with a character who's that stupid. It's perfectly possible to still achieve the dumb city girl vibe without somebody doing that to eggs or laundry.

I know people will think I'm taking this too seriously and this isn't a serious movie. I know. Christmas movies apparently are meant to be cheesy, bad on purpose, cliché and predictable. But truly, really, honestly - this is overdoing it, it doesn't have to be this stupid.

"I don't think I've every met somebody like you before. Because if I had, I would definitely remember." Yeah, no, that's not how memory loss works. Stupidest line of the movie (or well, half the movie, because I gave up).

I like the elaborate decorations and the fun details of the clothes and even the car in christmassy colours... but that's about it. Even Adam Lambert can't save this for me.

From the very start, this series is trying to create tension by the cinematography and music and I'm usually into that, but it just failed miserably with me this time. It was laid on so thick, so overdone. Same goes for the behaviour of the 'wife'; it's so overdone and unnatural. I know that's the point, but they still want the viewer to believe that nobody notices but the husband, even though the odd behaviour and what is said is so over the top that the guests that they're entertaining early in the first episode should have picked up on it too. Credibility and respect gone, as far as I'm concerned.

The 'The world is my ostrich' remark annoyed me no end.

But the fact that a non-Scottish actor is cast instead of the many great Scottish actors annoyed me even more.

(Didn't just not like it in this series, I never understand it anywhere. Filming on location in Amsterdam and then have non-Dutch actors play Dutch characters. Badly. It's so easy to be accurate, especially these days when facts can be instantly checked and foreign actors can be on your doorstep in hours.)

I'll admit to checking where it was going after only watching an episode-and-a-half because I couldn't stand it anymore. Not the suspense or the not-knowing, but I just found it cringeworthy. I didn't guess it all, but I guessed part of the infamous 'twist' and concluded the annoyances weren't worth that.

I genuinely think this is a beautiful series. Crime and family drama interwoven. Some people saying that this is so boring and slow-paced is such a sign of the times. Everything has to be fast, full of action and solved within a 30-minute episode. This isn't that. This takes time to percolate, to show different sides, to reveal memories, to cleverly create many suspects, to show beautiful scenery in all kinds of weather, to build characters. Very, very atmospheric, well-acted and beautiful.

Is this meant to be one of those few refreshing shows where we're not meant to root for the main character but instead rejoice in collective eyerolls? Is it also meant as a wonderful vehicle to unite all non-Americans by confirming all their prejudices about the US? Then this show is very successful.

Let me say, before I continue, that I of course know that this isn't intended as a serious show and I did have some fun with it because of the scenery. But even shows that are only intended to be a bit of light fun can at least try to get it right.

Emily's character looks and acts like a 15-year-old girl, yet every sophisticated man between 30 and 40 is interested in her. Yes, I'm aware Lily Collins is in her early 30s, but I think (hope...) we can all agree she mostly looks and acts like a teenager, making it uncomfortable and unnatural to hear her say "Please just rip it" about her bra in a supposedly hot scene that felt awkward and devoid of any chemistry and hear her talk about "The best night of sex I've ever had". And all those exaggerated expressions, forehead, the continuously tilting head... I find them very off-putting and the eyebrow theatrics only work for Emilia Clarke.

While I do actually like many of Emily's clothes (expect the top that's literally made by stitching two thin scarves against each other), in real life Paris, the whole street, metro, office and circle of friends would laugh out loud at her. That's no reason not to wear it, of course - be your own person! But it's portrayed like this is cool and stylish and 'what they do in Paris', which it is certainly not. Even though it's filmed in Paris, this is not what Paris looks like. All the American girls who only have this show as their frame of reference are in a for a rude awakening if they ever come to Paris. I absolutely love Paris, but come on. The streets are not this bright, spacious and clean. Parisians most definitely don't look like this - the streets aren't filled with women in extremely short skirts, bare legs, flashy colours and high heeled boots that leave a five-centimeter gap between the boots and the calves. Most Parisian women would find the clothes worn by the characters and extras very tacky; they generally like more muted and distinguished choices. Women in Paris (or anywhere, for that matter) don't wear the blue version of the red gala dress in Pretty Woman in an office unless they're models doing a photoshoot. And berets? No. Truly, no. I've literally seen dozens in this show already and it wasn't even a thing anymore when SatC did it. Not the flattened army kind, not the knitted standing up straight kind - no kind. Actually, you'd really stand out in Paris if you'd wear any headgear other than a baseball cap, a hoodie or headphones. If you don't want your actress riding a scooter (I mean, seriously?), at least make it look more real.

I also wonder what the intended demographic is for this show. If it's not-so-streetwise female pre-teens, I half get it, but I'm sure, with the relationships, boobs and sex, that's not the case. But if it's not... why all the childish stuff? Nobody, even an American who can barely pronounce oui and non, would confuse regular shampoo with dog shampoo, because they're usually not even sold at the same places, let alone so close together that mistake is possible. And why would you then look at the dog shampoo as if it's something dirty? It's still shampoo and you were very satisfied with your hair until a minute ago, so...? And while I do, truly, understand the concept of social media, hashtags and general marketing, the phrases she uses when posting are just so forced and childish.

The only three main characters I truly like are the ones I think are supposed to be the mean, grumpy, difficult (Sylvie) or weird (Luc) types. But they seem much more authentic than the rest. The characters of Laurent G. And Antoine I also like for the same reason. I don't blame the actors. Not in the least. Even they must have rolled their eyes at some point.

While I applaud France's law to reduce work outside of office hours, this only applies to e-mails and companies with more than 50 employees, so that is not correct. And yes, there's smoking in France, like in basically any country, but you can't do it indoors, so Sylvie smoking in her office is one of the many, many things the producers could have easily fact-checked but clearly didn't. It's the little things. If people walk in the rain, it's not only their hair that gets wet - their clothes, especially the shoulders, can't still be dry. If you hire an actor that is supposed to be Dutch, maybe not pronounce his last name, De Groot, as if he's a Marvel character. If you're letting a character from Chicago have a "Zoom with Corporate", you shouldn't add "this morning", because even if she had the meeting at 7am Paris time, it would still have been midnight in Chicago. Meetings between French and American offices are obviously usually done on French afternoons, making in morning in America. Come on now.

I'm with Alfie (I mean, Alfie, really?) when he says "Paris is built on a fantasy." Again, please bear in mind I do absolutely love Paris. But I still think this is true. However, Emily answers: "It's not all fantasy. Couples literally come here to get engaged." Yes, they do. Because they are unable to think of a more original idea. Because they apparently don't mind being one of 500 couples doing that very thing on that very day. Because they are o.k. With pretending they didn't have to shout to make themselves heard while proposing and didn't get run over by a scooter when taking the selfie that followed. I've only seen the first episode with Alfie and I can only hope this won't become a turnaround thing where Alfie admits he truly loves the fake idea of Paris. No, I'm not some bitter b***h begrudging other people's ideas of romance... I just think a show in which Paris is the main character should be more about the actual, real Paris. Because Paris in its rawest form is already worthy of a show.

By continuing and reinforcing all the incorrect cliché assumptions about (life in) Paris, the producers are continuing and reinforcing all the correct assumptions about Americans.

Edit after making it halfway through the second episode of the third season: I give up. It's just getting crazier and crazier, but also, interestingly, very, very boring. The not telling both sides the full story, the not fully committing to one boyfriend because you still have feelings for the other, it's all so predicatable and chewed out. I could probably sort of stand that as it's compensated with Paris scenery, but all of the things mentioned in my initial reviews are on absolute steroids this season. Wearing shoes bigger than your head when you are so slim, clearly much too heavy as you can see when she walks. The Madeline character is of course meant to be over the top, but this is pantomine level tacky and bad, with the huge water bottle and the horrible manners. I am all for normalising breast milk pumping at the office, I genuinely do... but this is not the way to do that. And wow, those huge, high boots again that, with a body like 'Emily's, leave two inches of space between calves and boots... but now they're metallic. And basically all characters constantly only wear a version of bikinis with jackets. To work, to clients, to dinner, at home. And on Emily's character, that combo, including the boots, looks like an 11-year-old dressing up from the oddest of drag queen chests who then starts to talk about wanting to rip someone's clothes off, which feels very uncomfortable. And after two seasons, you still pronounce 'bien sûr' as 'been sewer'? The worst of that is that nobody rolls their eyes, so I think it's not meant as a 'Emily is pronouncing something wrong again'-moment but as genuine and normal. Cringe.

It's just all too much and thinking about the many people who like this, and worse, the people who think this is all beautiful and plausible, and even worse than that, all the ignorant 20-year-olds that will be flooding Paris because of this, makes me despair. Changed my 5 to a 3, the 3 being for a few supporting actors and some cinematography.

So... do people actually want dishonest, cheesy Christmas films with fake snow, fake trees and fake props? Because this is NOT one of those (well, bit cheesy, sure) and that's why I thought the rating would be higher (it's at a 6.0 as I write this). I get that some people think the chemistry is lacking, but other than that... let's not forget what a wonderful exception to many other Christmas movies this is when it comes to fakery.

Think about it.

Remember 'Christmas made to order'? That film has snow, street lighting and christmassy garden ornaments edited in (yes, visibly, clumsily edited in) and after they go to a tree farm with actual trees you see them carrying a fake one into the house (you can see the metal pole). In 'A Christmas Prince: the royal wedding', the sleigh riding scenes are cgi - quite unnecessary and of a quality reminiscent of quidditch in the first HP film (which was made eighteen years before this). In the recent 'Father Christmas is back', the trees are green, the shrubs are in bloom and basically nothing is done to hide it. I see this fakery more and more in recent Christmas movies, especially the cheesy, Hallmark-y kind.

In THIS film however, the trees are actually bare or brown and there's not a blooming shrub in sight. It was filmed in Canada in October and November, so only slightly too much leaves still on the trees but that's it. There's actual (or at least very believable) snow, instead of sprayed plants and streets full of bath foam. The street decorations are a lot but still real (or at least real looking). The same goes for the interior decorations, which are very believable and 'natural' - i.e. It feels like a real house, not a studio full of props. For that alone I'd give any film at least a 6, no matter how bad the rest is...

And in this case, the rest isn't so bad. I thought it was pretty original, contemporary and even relatable here and there.

My only problem with this film is that, after things get honest, nobody tells Josh he was wrong too. It's the girl that has to do the walk (and talk) of shame, not the guy. Which is a bit odd, because all parties are in the wrong here and him more than her, in my opinion.

Still - rather watchable!

(and a fun title - but you'll have to watch it to get it)

Can't lie - I quite enjoyed this. Of course the plot where everybody loves each other in the end isn't original, but come on, isn't that why you started watching this? And some other things are actually original and sometimes slightly odd. Love Kris Marshall - more Christmas films with him please. My only problem with this is that it's so obviously not filmed in winter as the garden is green and even has some flowers. Other than that, I'm good.

I stayed for the wonderfully stylish and atmospheric way of filming, but after sitting through eight episodes with difficulty, even that isn't enough anymore.

As I said, beautiful cinematography, and I guess some very good acting (given the fact that I strongly dislike literally every character except two or three). With those two things obviously being the main criteria for a review, you'd expect 9 stars. But I'm not even sure it's worth 5 to me, so something clearly off for me. And I guess that's mostly about the way it makes me feel. Maybe the producers are that particular stereotype in the arts who feel that art should sting, that art should be difficult and raw, that art should make you feel uncomfortable and that art's not there to make you feel good. Well, that's one view, but not one I necessarily agree with. If people watch some or all episodes and are left with an even gloomier worldview than they already had, is that something to be proud of? That can't be the aim, can it?

But it seems to be, because the makers seem to have said on many occasions that they feel this is a realistic representation of many high school kids, of life, even. Really? If that is the case, the US are so much more messed up than I thought. I'm not saying there are no teen drug addicts or violent jocks or horrible fathers. But surely, this representation is extremely dark and exaggerated and purposely slightly surreal? I mean, if you introduce a drug dealer, face tattoos and all, who's barely out of diapers, you lose any credibility for me.

I just read in the Goofs section that the actors are 20+ so that the teenage audience have someone they can look up to. I genuinely hope this was written by a clueless user and that it's not something said by the producers. I mean... look UP to? These are lives and characters to aspire to?! Surely not.

Which brings me to a question I've read in a few other reviews as well: I assume the producers don't want to create a whole new wave of addicted, depressed, violent, insecure, mean teens, but they're not really trying hard to make it less appealing, do they? O.k., they're not literally saying these lives are fun, obviously, but they're still making everything, even the darkest bits, sexy and exciting. I mean, that's why people keep watching, let's be honest. Some actor quotes say that the show isn't glamorising nudity, addiction, etc., but showing it as it is, being real. It doesn't really, does it? Sure, it's not glamorising in the standard way, making everything look beautiful, but glamorising it in a gritty, clandestine, voyeuristic way is still glamorising. I genuinely think shows like these will do more bad than good. I genuinely think this show will make some people want to try drugs. Or webcamming, after introducing the horrible term 'pay pig' to a wider audience.

I saw two reviews and several descriptions of the show mention the great depiction of somebody with ocd, which was one of the reasons I started watching. I have ocd and even though I'm very aware that there are different types, manifestations and severities, I am interested in seeing it on screen. I didn't. Genuinely. The only thing that referred to it was the speech by Rue's mother, saying she needed to kiss her on both cheeks for balance. That's the only ocd thing I saw or heard in the whole season and it's a very cliché thing. Bipolar, maybe, yes, and anxiety attacks, yes. But I don't see any ocd, of any type. What am I missing?

I gather this show is doing well and there will be another season. Normally, you'd at least have sóme sort of storyline leading up to that, at least sóme sort of development, growth, etc. But there doesn't seem to be any, except a small sweet hopeful moment with Kat and Ethan, literally the only two characters that I feel something other than loathing for. (sidenote: I really like Austin Abrams; there are moments he reminds me of the 80s Andrew McCarthy) The main characters seem determined to make life as horrible as they can for themselves and everybody around them, and some characters and situations that could at least balance that out a bit It or be used to convey a message of wrong and right (for example Chris/McKay or the situation with Tyler) were simply suddenly absent. It feels like the producers feel that they are above something as mundane as character/situation development or anything hopeful.

Confession: the older I get, the more American English and American culture get on my nerves. The importance of high school football, the overly sexualised cheerleaders, the performance driven culture, the pronunciation, the vocal fry... And even with these difficult subjects and gritty feel, they were still very generous with pouring the American sauce over it. And I happen to strongly prefer the British sauce, which I generally find much more realistic, authentic, heartfelt and appealing. To me, even with the darker, grittier side, it still feels as superficially American as Pretty Little Liars. And if you make subjects and content like this feel superficial, you've done something wrong. Maybe this is a culture thing, a lost in translation thing, with non-Americans not 'feeling' it. Or maybe it's just me. Luckily, reviews are subjective.

I wanted to sit the whole (regular) season out, but whereas the second to last episode was doable for me, I found the last episode very badly done, especially the second half with just a jumble of bleak, somber scenes and images. And the last few minutes, where it suddenly became a musical, a dark version of Glee, I found pure cringe and I literally found myself looking away and then doing the 15-second fast forward a few times. Aside from strongly disliking anything even remotely resembling a musical, it also adds to the surreal feeling, undermining the credibility.

I'm somebody who detests toxic positivity and superficiality. I love telling and showing it like it is, even if that's dark, hard and difficult. So, especially combined with great photography and some good acting, I should like this. But I don't. Because I don't believe it. And again: if you go this far and deep with all the nudity, drugs, violence, fights, screaming and crying, and I still don't feel like I know the characters or find them believable, I think I should stop trying after these eight episodes.

I tried. I really tried. But just like these two women really shouldn't be friends, I don't think I could be friends with the people who gave this 10/10. They're probably not my kind of people, as this is not my kind of show. It's wonderful that they were able to enjoy it, but I couldn't.

Found it hard to relate to or empathise with the two main characters, as one is a pushover and the other is selfish (and no, a background like that is no excuse).

But what bothered me much more than that was the totally 'off' ages of the actors. The fact that a 42-year-old and a 44-year-old play college students, and a 23-year-old plays a teen who hasn't had her period yet, is distracting, cringe and even a bit confusing, I found. A 44-year-old playing a not even 20-year-old standing at the bottom of the stairs with odd 'I'm a shy goodie-two-shoes' movements felt just... wrong. Why not have the 'teenage' actors play the college years too, at least, if you don't want het another set of actors. This also applies to a Sean laying on his bed in his boy's room played by a 40-year-old - bordering on uncomfortable... made worse by the fact that Robbie is a different actor in that year but he's not.

Another thing I found distracting is Katherine's skin. It's not nice to comment on somebody's appearance, but that's not really what I'm doing - it's more the extremely shiny makeup that give her an unnatural chemo-ish look. I hope there's nothing wrong with her medically because if there is, this is a rather horrible thing to say, but I can't deny I found it distracting.

What also bothered me greatly is the cliche 'she's the pretty one and she's the ugly one' routine. Not made any better by the fact that the 'ugly' one is beautiful and very slim but still shown as shopping for Spanx. Really?

Lastly, a more superficial remark: if the clothes and decor etc. are truly true to the era, Europe and the US are even more different than I already thought they were. I mean... that lilac maternity dress never came near Europe, trust me. But maybe that feels worse than it is because there's a 44-year-old in it pretending to be 25.

Oh dear. Even as a unapologetic lover of bad Christmas films, I found this bordering on painful. I gave it 3 stars purely for the fact that I judge Christmas films by a different standard than other films. My cringe threshold changes for holiday movies. But still. This is bad, bad, bad, even for me. The fact that this is the first Christmas film ever I felt the urge to review is telling. Well, except that one where the snow in the street was actually, literally, visibly suds/bubbles, but I can't remember what it's called (it wasn't Christmas Foam Party, but it should be).

Anyway. I'm o.k. with the plot. Very predictable, but a slightly different premise than usual. Tolerable acting. But I just can't get over the editing and other odd and unnecessary 'technical' choices. At 31 minutes, you see a street where the white bits (snow on rooftops and trees) are edited in so, so badly I think I, with no editing skills, could have done better. This literally looks like Bob Ross was given a brush with white paint and a film reel, but had to stop before making it look realistic. In another scene, the Christmas decorations in gardens in the neighbourhood are edited in. The worst part? The whole family goes to a tree farm, gets a lecture about which kinds are the best and to not buy one that has already gotten a bit brown underneath... only to use a clearly, clearly artificial tree for the living room scenes. As in, they didn't even try - underneath the tree you can see the thinnest of stems (i.e. the metal rod...). Why?! Lastly, even for a Christmas movie, the decoration taste level is so bad. Nothing authentic, warm, cosy, matching, atmospheric, but only artificial, plastic, tacky, random stuff. They just bought every China-made Christmas decoration they could find and put them together. They're so flammable that is going to be one big AliExpress bonfire soon. Now, normally I could understand the choices if they were made by a character in a move that just doesn't have an eye for it. But all spaces are done by... a holiday decorator. Ouch.