Lifetime movies? More Like ‘Strife’ Time Movies (Satire)
By Emily Holson
This past week, I, of (relatively) sound body and mind, willingly subjugated myself to one of the most despicable forms of punishment imaginable: Lifetime movies. Though tortures have existed for thousands of years, each skilled at pulling the most visceral of reactions from their victims, Lifetime has, truly, discovered a new breed of torment. These three movies have left me a shell of my former self.
Fab Five: The Texas Cheerleader Scandal (2004)
Apparently, Lifetime has a thing for tales of strife and the human condition framed through the lens of early 2000’s cheerleader movies. Hey, I’m not… knocking it, per say. I’m sure the elites of Shakespearean England mocked ol’ Willy for his works of art, too. Yeah, this movie was the Yorwick to my Hamlet. Alas, poor Fab Five; I knew thee well. Not willingly, of course, but well.
Summary: This “film” heralds the tale of a juvenile cheerleading squad in the form of knock-off Regina George and her brady bunch, lovingly titled the ‘Fab Five.’ These tyrants rule over the Jacksonville high with many small, slightly glittered, iron-fists. However, things change when Coach Emma Carr believes that she can reform these troubled rapscallions through hard work and the good old American™ work ethic, only to discover that the corruption goes far deeper than teenage rebellion. A fish rots from the head down, after all.
Negative attributes: Most scenes… just a majority of it. There never existed a time where I was genuinely happy to be watching this. The script’s dialogue is mostly bad, and when not, barely passable. There was one scene in particular where the main antagonist (I hesitate to call her that because this movie’s protagonist is a married woman fighting against literal children) was asking someone about a girl’s whereabouts, but clearly, something was wrong with the script because she continued to walk away while asking the question. The movie’s hectic pace dragged her off screen. Alas, another soul consumed by the abyss. Godspeed, random actress who I’ll likely never see again. Godspeed.
Positive attributes: It’s comical; I got a good chuckle outta this baby. Not because it’s written well, but because the side characters went buck wild in every scene and made it a point to shout their lines. Jeri’s unnamed skater boyfriend in particular was a joy to watch, though he embodied every toxic stereotype associated with the type.
The writers, at the very least, try to make the villains of the Fab Five three-dimensional; Brooke, or as I call her, Julius Caesar in the form of a teenage girl, is the leader of the squad, but even she has moments of humanity. What detracts from these seemingly redeeming qualities is the lack of development. In fact, the film chooses to end Brooke’s arc with the girl flipping off the camera in a final act of defiance. That’s not growth; that’s not human. That’s the reaction of a raccoon raiding my trash can at 3am dressed like Paris Hilton.
Overall rating: I give this movie two out of ten stars— the same score I would give the mosquito in my room, humming its nasally minstrels well into the dawn. I can’t act malicious towards something only fulfilling its nature, but I can’t exactly reward it for leeching off my pain, either.
Undercover Cheerleader (2019)
Why does Lifetime keep painting uber toxic, stereotyped film depictions of cheerleaders? Why, in the expanse of nearly fifteen years, do they continue to recycle plots and characters? Why does the dialogue from 2019 sound just as bad as the one from 2004?
Summary: Our basic MC Autumn is a transfer student at a new school, and she’s searching for a clique around which to surround her entire personality. You know— the pinnacle of the American teenager’s experience. On her first day, she meets Kara, a writer for the school newspaper who’s basically a discount Janice from Mean Girls with none of the appeal, and the two hatch a scheme to infiltrate and expose the supposedly toxic culture of cheerleading. Along the way, stunts are pulled as much as muscles, and just as Autumn begins to enjoy herself on the team, a series of assaults begin to plague cheer practice.
Negative attributes: If it wasn’t obvious at this point, the writers of this “film” don’t seem to hold cheerleading in a very high regard— or, if they do, it’s through a generalization at the expense of legitimate athletes. I won’t stand for this slander.
Positive attributes: I didn’t enjoy myself at all. However, to provide our macabre overlords at Lifetime with even a morsel of respite, I’ll admit this: their film instilled within me a true sense of dread. If decay is truly an extant form of life, then this movie made me feel alive.
Overall rating: I rate this movie one poisonous mushroom out of millions.
Baby For Sale (2004)
Never before have I contemplated a life of restrictive joys; never before has my devotion to the tangible been twanged so; never before have I considered joining a Tibetan monastery to achieve a higher purpose. This movie contorts reality; up is down, left is right, and babies are for sale.
Summary: A couple of beige paint swatches want to adopt a baby. Their hopes are dashed when the baby girl they seek to adopt is caught up in— and words cannot convey enough of my immense pain— an underground baby-selling ring. I’d say more, but the movie is exactly what the title says; they’re trying to get their baby back from some malignant baby sellers. No emotional arcs, no thoughts, head empty. Only capitalism of the infant class.
Negative attributes: Aside from the poorly edited pacifier in the title, laughably bad Ukrainian accents, and jump cuts that nearly induced seizures, the film’s most egregious crime is it’s lack of depth. Yeah, I know, shocking. A film titled Baby For Sale isn’t the next Parasite? Say it isn’t so! The message here isn’t some deeper commentary on the adoption process and how it exploits the innocents involved, nor is it a gritty take on child rearing between unequal social classes— the only message this film seems capable of telling is, “oh… no, baby selling bad… no sell baby.”
Positive attributes: The acting isn't awful, but it’s nowhere near competent enough to save this film. I’m sorry, that is truly the only compliment I can spare. It’s not so bad it’s good, it’s just draining. I suppose the film’s ability to suck the soul out of what should have been a campy TV film is commendable. Overall, it feels incompetent. And I feel disgusted.
Overall rating: A whopping zero diapers out of ten. Watch these… things... if you must. Just don’t blame me for any dissatisfaction trailing your heels. Though I spent but a few hours with these circus clowns of cinema, I can say this with certainty: it felt like a lifetime.
