Today I learned that knobby russets are a variety of apple.
Between Hallmark and Lifetime alone, nevermind ABC Family and countless other channels, the TV movie romance genre is one that is supersaturated and flooding the entirety of the surrounding landscape. It's a genre that for the average viewer is okay in small, irregular, rare doses, but becomes readily tiresome in any greater quantity. Where did 'Sweet as pie' originate? Does it matter? (It doesn't.) Set aside a few specific details - the characters' names and the actors behind them, to some extent, but mostly the primary setting - and from one film to the next, they are so identical that one could effectively be laid over top of another ad infinitum and it would still be extremely difficult to observe any variation. This doesn't mean that these are all inherently bad and without value; there is a time and place for most any picture, and sometimes an impossibly light, fluffy, kitschy little nothing is just what one needs. If nothing else, one can rest assured that one selection to the next will be consistent, with a difference of perhaps only degrees. Whether that is truly to the genre's advantage, or a congenital flaw, is in the eye of the beholder. Choose wisely.
"Consistent" is one word; "generic" might be another. This 2022 romcom shares almost everything with its twenty-first century kin: dialogue, scene writing, characters (in and of themselves, relationships, backgrounds), narrative, plot development, casting, acting, delivery, ham-handedness, music, direction, cinematography, editing, hair, makeup, costume design, production design, art direction, and more. Truly, a lot of the same filmmakers, writers, cast, and crew commonly churn out one such feature after another; some lines could be copied and pasted from one script to another and none would be the wiser. It's easy to think of any actor we've seen in any other similar piece, and swap them in and out with those appearing here. And so on, and so on. In fairness, consider each facet one by one and for the most part each is well done. The filming locations are lovely; I actually do like the choices of wardrobe, hair, and makeup. Maximilian Brey's photography really is very easy on the eyes, and despite myself, some of the humor herein is earnestly amusing. There are genuine kernels of cleverness here and there, however slight. I think it's safe to say that no matter how cynical one is, one can't fairly judge the actors' skills based exclusively on such fare as this; for what it's worth, I think they're just fine in what they bring to this charming if plastic cookie-cutter movie, and I'd like to see what they're able to do if given the chance elsewhere, not least star Rhiannon Fish.
On the other hand, the music is so bland, soulless, and unremarkable as to be sterile, and it might actually be the one aspect of the picture that's so overbearing as to be wholly aggravating. This is assuming one actually can overlook how ninety-nine percent of the feature is not just undistinctive but essentially indistinguishable, and how, for the fact of it, the contrivance of the production is all the more readily apparent. The sheer number of (minor) dramatic turns that Haidyn Harvey and Amy Katherine Taylor toss into their screenplay is kind of astounding. The end result is perfectly competent and perfectly pleasant, sure - but also perfectly formulaic, perfectly standard, and perfectly unexceptional. All this is well and good if you've never seen a single other comparable TV movie; if you have, I'm not sure there's any major reason to check this out. If you're an especial fan of someone involved, or if for some reason you just can't get enough of flicks like this, then by all means, jump right in. Otherwise, save 'Sweet as pie' for a day when you desperately need something lighthearted you don't need to actively engage with - or watch something equally identical. For better or worse, it's all the same.
1 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
