The Wrong Paris Was Just Right For ME!

Alternatively: why are people such HATERS

Here’s a thing about me: I love being a hater.

Watching a movie that sucks is a great time. Having opinions on a movie that sucks is even better. I am no stranger to a negative Letterboxd review.

But I gotta say, the people who hated Nicole Henrich’s The Wrong Paris, aka the Miranda Cosgrove Texas Bachelor movie, are hating too hard.

[Alt text: A Letterboxd review for The Wrong Paris (2025) with a photo of the cover, a brunette white woman in a blue dress holding a golden spur with a tall blond white man in a black cowboy outfit behind her. The review gives it 4 stars and was dated September 25, 2025. The review says, “This has so many bad reviews and for what?? It was cute!! Is it a recession indicator to be a certified hater cause what more did people want from this Netflix romcom”.]

Movie Recap:

Miranda Cosgrove, whose character is named Dawn but honestly that is asking too much out of my suspension of disbelief, wants to go to Paris! She wants to be an artist who makes sculptures at the Paris Art Academy (yep, yep, the name actually is Academie D’Art De Paris) like her dead mother always wanted her to. Her two little sisters and grandmother, who inexplicably isn’t called Grandma but instead seemingly goes by her government name, Birdie, also wants Miranda Cosgrove to go to Paris. Unfortunately, Miranda Cosgrove spent her emergency fund to cover Birdie’s hospital bill last year. So even though she’s admitted into art school, she can’t afford tuition and living expenses. Huge set back for our leading lady.

Good news, though: our little sister has a plan. Haven’t we heard of the reality dating show, The Honey Pot, which includes a twist where the final rose—er, I mean, the final golden stirrup—receiver chooses between the handsome maybe love of her life and a huge chunk of change?

The best part? It’s going to be set in Paris! So if Miranda Cosgrove can just get onto the show and then subsequently get kicked off, she’ll have her appearance fee and not have to shell out any for the plane ticket. This appearance fee, apparently, will sustain her for a two year degree in one of the most expensive cities in the world. (We love a girl with ambition and delusions.)

Obviously, the producers of The Honey Pot aren’t going to just sweep everyone to Paris, France, though, not when there’s a good old town about 60 minutes from Miranda Cosgrove’s house called Paris, Texas. So off to the ranch we go.

Here’s what you need to know: Miranda Cosgrove isn’t like other girls. She’s willing to throw beer on skeevie dudes and she’s actually good at scooping manure. So, obviously, she’s a match made in Heaven for our honeypot, Pierson Fodé’s Trey, which, again, is an unfortunate name I can’t in good faith believe.

Will Miranda Cosgrove choose her real love connection with Trey the Cowboy?? Or will she use the money to go to Academie D’Art De Paris!? Gotta watch to find out.

“We Reject Hate In This House” and other yard signs

According to the internet reviews I’m finding, people are not into this movie!

Sure, it’s cheesy and predictable. But Miranda Cosgrove is kind of a delight and Trey, while milquetoast, isn’t evil—or at least, isn’t offensively boring. He’s got a secret lagoon he likes to brood at, he cares more about his horses than this “little show” that he agreed to be on, and he once went viral saving a kitten.

Disclaimer: I watched this movie while bullet journaling and organizing my sticker collection, took zero notes, and decided to write about this roughly a month later. This is not an academic review, this is a friendly rant and I’m very willing to be wrong.

Things that reviewers (and I’m talking about boots-on-the-grounds Letterboxd randos, not just published critics) are saying:

• Stereotypical gender roles

• Christian propaganda

• Boring

• Unrealistic

Does the movie lean into stereotypes about women, pitting them against each other?

Yeah, of course. Dawn only really makes friends with the other quirky, not-here-for-fame woman, whereas any woman who seems to be earnestly trying to win is villainous. But—and I’m so serious here—the whole concept of a reality dating show is women fighting. The movie isn’t subversive, but importantly, it never claims to be. It’s exactly what it says on the tin. What else could have happened in this script?

Is the movie Christian propaganda?

Listen, I’m Take-Media-Way-Too-Seriously’s best girl, really, I am. And, okay, in the way that you can argue any movie about straight people falling in love is propaganda, totally. I hear ya.

But honestly, I think if your main take away from this movie was Christian propaganda, the propaganda tool is your own analysis, babe. It’s certainly approachable for that demographic, but these cheesy Hallmark movies usually are. She had a goal, she had ambition, she moved the plot forward without getting pregnant or married, she didn’t give up her art, and no one even prayed over the dinner table as far as I can remember. I just wasn’t picking up on any of that.

For me, this could totally be used in a critique about the larger culture leaning toward “traditional” values, but there’s nothing particularly sinister about any of these characters or portrayals that go outside of the genre expectations.

Was the movie boring?

Boo! Get out! Tomato, tomato. Within the limitations of the movie concept and the genre, it was a perfectly reasonable movie.

Was this unrealistic to the rancher’s lifestyle?

I mean, probably! A guy wrote on Rotten Tomatoes: “Appears like a typical Hallmark movie. It’s also an insult to the ranching lifestyle plagued with inaccuracies.” and gave the film 1/2 star. I think this is so funny. Typical Hallmark movie as a negative for this movie is wild, like calling The Dark Knight Rises too broody. Like baby, that’s the whole point. And, you know what, I’m going to defend the inaccuracies! The guy had camera crews at his ranch and he was filthy rich. Regular ranch life can’t touch a millionaire’s. I bet that lounging around with your shirt off makes sense in this scenario.

That said, the haters definitely have a point.

The Guardian’s Adrian Horton gave this movie a whopping 2/5 stars. She wrote that the movie was part of Netflix’s greater collection of “low-grade background watches.” And… Yeah, I agree! Here’s the difference: I dig a low-grade background watch. This movie was incredible while I organized my stickers.

The movie may be mid, but is that a crime? Let the people occasionally be mid.

Comm 101 Check-In Time:

When thinking about my opinions around this movie, I had to admit that my gut instinct (leave her alone!!) works against my general opinion on art as a whole, which is that, yes, it does affect and work within the cultural zeitgeist even when it seems frivilous. (Like, say, any of the hundreds of analyses on Taylor Swift’s new album.)

You probably know Gerbner’s Cultivation Theory, which posits that what we consume in media shapes our understanding of the world, which, in turn, shapes the world itself. So, okay, if we’re saying The Wrong Paris could, in theory, work to help build the framework of our world, does it become a bad or sinister movie then?

Guys… I gotta say… I still think the answer’s no!

You can absolutely watch this movie and use it to dissect Christian culture in America. But, like, you don’t have to. It’s not like it’s Cheryl McKay’s The Ultimate Gift or that one football movie my grandma made me watch, Facing the Giants. It’s just a movie that’s somewhat bad, American enough to be a little sinister, and base-line enjoyable.

Entertainment is its own purpose, separate from art.

I think that’s where my disagreements with some of the negativity is really stemming from. All in all, I think bad movies serve a purpose. I don’t think all art has to be “art” with shiny eyes, straight from the Academie D’Art De Paris itself. Sometimes, art can just be entertainment.

I think two separate funnels exist. This movie should never be compared to something like, say, I Saw The TV Glow. That movie was the kind of writing, the kind of acting, that could turn your stomach to jelly and your heart to physically ache. That was cinema. That was a piece of art.

The Wrong Paris, alternatively, was just a couple of gals hanging out and doing stuff with a cowboy. Where’s the harm in that?

I’m not saying that a rom-com doesn’t hold importance. I deeply believe in romance fiction as a way to situate yourself, and your desire, in your world.

In Rosalind Coward’s 1984 “Female Desire”, she digs into romance fiction, specifically novels, and why they compel readers the way that they do. She writes, “Romantic fiction promises a secure world, promises that there will be safety with dependence, that there will be power with subordination.” There’s inherent political power in romance fiction because it is a way to navigate the world, like Gerbner suggests.

It’s a way to understand the world, and, more importantly, yourself. When you see something that resonates as romantic to you, there’s a tick of knowledge that gets released—a desire, a boundary, a hope. I think consuming romance fiction can be a crucial way to figure out what you want in your own life.

I just don’t think the movie has to be Oscar-worthy or prestigious to do that.

Meshing everything that a person creates together into one objective bleeds meaning from it all. If all art has to be bubble gum enjoyment, it can’t ever be hard to swallow; if all entertainment needs to also say something, it can’t ever be on in the background while I’m sending emails. Just because something is made with the same ingredients and with the same kitchen doesn’t mean it needs to do the same thing.

Am I taking this too personal?

Honestly, maybe! My artistic career deals almost primarily with romance as a genre. It captivates me, and I believe in its power. I also believe in just having a chill time sometimes.

I write things that I think hold a real message, that I hope can affect people and linger with them; I also write things that are cotton-candy fluff that exists only to bring joy and fun to the people who read them. For example, a recent project of mine was writing adapting romance novels into vertical drama scripts. I read the romances and wrote minute-long episodes to capture the story and heart of those novels. I wouldn’t say they’re art. But I also wouldn’t say they don’t serve a purpose. People enjoy these vertical romance dramas; it brightens their day, fits in their schedules, entertains them. And I think that has its own merit.

So what do I think of The Wrong Paris?

It was fiiiiiine! Give it a chance (or don’t) but definitely let the poor thing just be itself. An enjoyable but otherwise unmemorable rom-com is a perfectly valid genre.

Watch The Wrong Paris (available on Netflix).

Watch my favorite rom-com instead, Austenland

Or if you’re a vertical girlie, watch Conflict of Interest (my involvement was the teleplay, not the story/characters, or production)

I wanna know if any of you have seen this movie and what you think! Am I missing something? Do you think all movies should be held to the same artistic standards?