The Night Of The Bad Judgement Calls.

SAW II (2005)

I know how this works. One good horror movie always breeds a shitty horror movie sequel. It's horror movie law. So after thoroughly enjoying Saw (2004), I didn't go into Saw II expecting anything particularly awe-inspiring. However, it does say something about Hollywood's sewage system when Saw, the based-on-a-student-film with a then no-name director and writer, is a solid horror classic and Saw II is just...well. Something that floated up from the depths of the swamp, right next to the Mob Boss Tony's last hit. 

But, like I said, I expected it, and when you know a movie's going to be bad, you generally have a lot more patience for it. So I sat back, let it run its course, and tried not to ask too many questions like: 

• Why don't they pull the antidote off the dead guy's body? 
• Why do the hackers take an hour and a half to show up? 
• Why do they have two inept cops working the case, one of which is very emotionally compromised? 
• Why are all the people in the death-house insanely stubborn? 
• I mean, really stubborn?
• As in: not making any sort of logical decisions at all?

I have to hand it to the detective's son stuck in the room full of poisonous gas with about five other people: at least he didn't do shit. I mean, if poison is seeping into your lungs, I think the smartest thing to do would be to sit still, keep your mouth shut, and try not to breath. Right? So while he was pretty much a pointless pawn character, he was the only one I really had any respect for because he didn't breath like Brainy. How about that? I don't expect a lot of logic from horror movie characters, but it's nice when at least one of them has some sort of method to their madness.

The only thing that gave this movie any sort of street cred was the ending. While it was predictable, I did make an uncontrollable happy-noise when I saw a familiar set, so that was enjoyable. Other than that, I'm slowly (but surely) making my way through this franchise (so if I see spoilers, I might have to don my pig-mask). Saw III review coming soon!

Made-For-TV Audiobook.

CARRINGTON (1995)

Carrington is not a movie. It may look like a movie, it may talk like a movie, and it may quack like a movie, but it is not a movie. If you treat it like a movie, you'll get impatient, bored, and confused. Its a novel masquerading as a movie. Carrington traces through the lives of two prominent members of the Bloomsbury Group, a sect of British intellectuals in the early 20th century. It follows the story of Dora Carrington (Emma Thompson) who falls in love with author Lytton Strachey (Jonathan Pryce). One problem: Dora is considered something of damaged goods to be a virgin at her age and Lytton is gay. Their marriage is unorthodox from start to finish as they continuously invite others into their house and bed, yet anyone would be hard pressed to find two people quite as devoted to each other as Dora and Lytton. 

The actors hold their own--Emma Thompson is fantastic and plays beautifully off of the brilliant Jonathan Pryce. The script is untamable, but carries a lot of compassion for its main characters who you can't help but fall in love with. As a film, Carrington doesn't hold up well. It's too long, there's not enough plot, and it has the apperance of being all over the place. However, once I settled into the fact that it was more of a novel than a movie, I was able to let the characters run free at their own pace. I put it down for the night when I felt it wearing a little thin, then picked it up and resumed the next day, ready to explore the next chapter of these characters' lives. In short, Carrington is bit of a tedious movie, but a stellar audiobook. 

Fassbender Snuggles A Bear Cub For 2 Hours.

A BEAR NAMED WINNIE (2004)

A good reprieve from American Psycho, no? A Bear Named Winnie delves into the origins of the bear that inspired Winnie The Pooh, a bear named Winnie who was adopted by a World War I army veterinarian, an ultimately won over (most of) the infantry. In short, A Bear Named Winnie is what happens when you feel like doing your history on Michael Fassbender and realize that this one is an instant watch on Netflix. I'm assuming the target audience encompasses young children and their tired mothers looking for a little more eye-candy than The Hunchback Of Notre Dame has to offer, so with that in mind, I'm fully aware that I fall outside this movie's spectrum. However, I have to give it points for trying. Credit where credit is due, there have been worse movies for children dedicated to animals, which can be summed up in "animals do silly animal things for 90 minutes straight." At very least, this movie has a World War I backdrop. Which makes for good bromances and vague moral queries. It also makes for a hardass commanding officer antagonist, who is always over the top but necessary for movies like this.

The highlight, of course, is the bear, Winnie, and Michael Fassbender. The movie really could have been called Fassbender Snuggles A Bear Cub For 2 Hours and I would've been satisfied. Winnie herself is an adorable, lumbering thing and watching her wrap Fassbender in a bear hug sends me into spasms of irrational glee. It doesn't help that Stephen Fry makes a brief but always welcome cameo. Overall, the movie is a happy-go-lucky feel good animal film that never gets too campy nor too Old Yeller style dark, and while it might run a little longer than it has to, it's an entertaining watch for children, Fassbender fanatics, and anyone who stays up at night dreaming about burrowing their face into a mountain of warm bear fur.

The Good, The Bad, And The Disappointing.

DREAM HOUSE (2011)

Here's the thing: I'm okay with bad movies. Really, I am. If a movie is bad, but understands that it is bad, even better. I can't tell you how many times I've watched Deep Blue Sea (1999) and thoroughly enjoyed it. What I can't stand is a disappointing movie. A movie that has a lot of potential, but tries too hard to be greater than it is. Dream House unfortunately fell under the disappointing category. The plot was promising. A man named Will Atenton (Daniel Craig) moves into a house with a dark and bloody history with his wife (Rachel Weisz) and kids. Maybe it's a story that's been told before, but it's one that, for the most part, has a good history of always delivering a satisfying tale.

The actors themselves are all very talented and they make of the script what they can, but you can only breath so much life into something that refuses to live. I understand that the case could be made that half of the movie takes place in Will Atenton's fantasy land and therefore you can make the argument that his fantasy is stilted and flat. Except for the one simple fact that Will is supposed to be a successful writer, and therefore he should be able to dream up some better dialog. Still, the film limps along--wounded, but still pushing through, mainly by way of the excellent chemistry between Craig, Weisz, and Watts. It's not until the third act that it really falls flat on its face, pulling in unnecessary characters, trying to make things fit where they don't belong, and generally mucking up the entire structure of the story. In the end, the film's biggest issue is that it simply tries too hard: on one hand, we have a movie about a man gone mad with grief, on the other hand, we have a whodunit helmed by an unreliable narrator. It was Fight Club (1999) and Taken (2008) with just a splash of The Shining (1980). It couldn't chose between being a dark psychological thriller or a campy horror movie, and instead fell somewhere in the dead-end grey area between "a feel good" film and a "good feel bad" film.

My only advice to someone who wants to see this film? Don't watch the trailer. It gives away a twist that might have bumped the movie up a star for me if I hadn't been waiting for it to come around.