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!

Making Zombies Roll In Their Graves.

WARM BODIES (2013)

There is nothing worse than watching a movie with a truly great concept fall on its ass. It's a little like a getting box of rich, German chocolates only to find that they're covered in homeless man piss. It's not only disappointing; it's offensive. Because now that idea is done and can never be undone and maybe, maybe in ten years if anyone cares enough they'll redo it and try to re-salvage it, but chances are, it's already left such a bitter, acidic taste in everyone's mouth that they really don't want to touch it again. 

Such is the tragedy of Warm Bodies. I loved the concept. Really, I thought the idea of getting inside a zombie's head and watching them come back to life was very clever. And, for what it's worth, the first five minutes of the film delivered on that promise. We got to see him complaining about moving so slow and we got to see him grunting out conversations with his "friend." Everything was moving smoothly...until the movie actually started. I don't know; maybe something got lost in translation in the book-to-movie adaptation. Maybe someone just fell asleep at the wheel. Whatever happened, the movie moved far too fast, couldn't seem to focus on one plot, and didn't give us any real reason to care about the main characters.

To be perfectly honest, the only reason I hung in there was for "M," the zombie friend portrayed by Rob Corddry. His transition, at least, made a little sense and was enjoyable to watch. Other than that, the rest was just some lukewarm Shakespeare retelling with terrible CGI. I don't know why I thought this was a good idea; time to rewatch Shaun of the Dead (2004).

"He Doesn't Want Us To Cut Through Our Chains."

SAW (2004)

So here's the thing. I actually avoided this one when it came out. I couldn't tell you why. Probably because it was around the time when the theaters were infested with plotless gore and I was over it. I was getting sick and tired of the same "rotting" green filter and the same heavy breathing in the microphone. So I skipped this one. For much too long. Finally, I sat down to see it. And I'll be the first to say it: I was wrong. 

The brilliance of Saw is that it's just a straight-up good movie. There's a good deal of gore, sure, but that's nothing compared to the mindfuck that this movie puts you through every time Jigsaw gets another victim under his grasp. We have our killer, our hero, we even have the obsessive cop with a chip on his shoulder. It's all the makings of a good, physiological thriller. The acting is, for the most part, pretty solid, and it helps that Ben makes an appearance. It puts a lot of twists on what you expect from a horror film and constantly ups the ante. Case in point: tired of the one man fumbling through his dark apartment to avoid a hidden assailant? Try a photographer fumbling through his apartment, constantly flashing pictures to give himself some makeshift light. Brilliant. The music is epic, the pacing is great, I really have no complaints with the movie as it is. 

Of course, one of my favorite things about Saw is how simple it is. The majority of the movie just focuses on two guys in a filthy room. It was created by two film students straight out of school who wanted to make something low-budget and brilliant. Honestly, it doesn't get better than that. What can I say, I'm a sucker for a Cinderella story that ends in a jaw-splitting torture helmet. 

I'm probably the last person on earth to see this movie, so I highly doubt I have to recommend this one to anyone. Onto the rest of the series! 

TV Trauma: The River.

THE RIVER (2012)

If it wasn't obvious, I'm scrambling to do a massive, massive A-To-Z catch up. With that said, a little something different this time around. The River is a miniseries that came out this year, and when I say miniseries I mean "had a stellar first season with the promising possibility of a second, but since when has TV ever followed through on their best shows?" The thing was, I didn't really expect myself to get sucked into The River. The plot seemed a little cliché at best--when a wildlife expert with his own TV show goes missing, his family trudges through the Amazon to find him. And, of course, in order to fund their adventure through the Amazon, they've made a deal with the producer to go "Big Brother" on them and film every step of their journey. Sounds like a lot of familiar horror movie techniques working at once, right? Wrong. The River was refreshing, clever, and one of the best shows I've seen in a long time.

What really sells this show is its command of suspense. And you know what, maybe a less gullible viewer would've been able to call out all the twists and turns before they happened. But the script is really, genuinely good at slowly building tension. We're going back to the days of Hitchcock, that good, old fashioned suspense that creeps up behind you with an outstretched silhouette of a hand. Instead of relying on clever CGI and shock-value, The River has a solid story. Plus, it made me jump in my seat more than once, and anyone who has watched movies with me will tell you that's a hard feat to accomplish.

Not only do we have a great script, but we have a great ensemble cast. There wasn't a single person I wasn't at one point rooting for in the movie. The characters are all likable, complex, and very, very human. From the claustrophobic camera man, to the even-tempered bodyguard, to the mildly possessed but beautiful mechanic. Our main characters were the family members themselves--Lincoln Cole, played by the underrated Joe Anderson who you might know from Across The Universe, and Tess Cole, played by the intense Leslie Hope. And, of course, the missing man himself, Emmet Cole, who was pulled off by Bruce Greenwood. If the tense, frightening situations don't hook you in, the characters will. There were rumors of a second season, but I highly doubt that will happen. Still, I'm not all that chuffed about it--the first season was a solid, tight miniseries without any fatty, extraneous bits. It didn't wear off its welcome and kept a clean, fresh feeling. If this is all they have to show for it, they already have more than most TV shows can boast. If you haven't seen this one, I highly recommend checking it out. 

Vampire Porn Goes Viral.

QUEEN OF THE DAMNED (2002)

Since I reviewed Interview With The Vampire, I felt obligated to review this one as well. Even though I am aware that it is entirely unfair of me to review this bad boy, since I have read the book by Anne Rice, Queen Of The Damned, and therefore I hate this movie's undead, beating heart. My hatred is blind and complete. I have absolutely no idea how this movie holds up as a movie, that is, on it's own two legs without the knowledge that a much better book came before it. For all I know, this could be an excellent vampire movie. But here's the thing--if you want to go ahead and make your own vampire movie, fine by me. Hollywood is happy to oblige more bloodsuckers. However, if you're going to do a translation of a book, for the love of God, read the source material. I'm looking at you too, Troy. It barely follows the plot of the book, the characters are all turned on their heads, and worst of all, the director doesn't even know how to pronounce major character's names. Not even kidding. Listen to the commentary, he calls the very French Louis "Lou-IS." And my brain all over the walls.

Am I being petty? Completely. But let's look at the facts: enter our main character and hero, Lestat. The self-absorbed Brat Prince of the vampire world. Great. So they've switched up his backstory, but I get it. He has a complicated, incestuous past, and you want to keep him on the sexy side. Fine. But then they go and cast pretty-boy Stuart Townsend, who has a hard time acting his way out of a paper bag. I will give him credit where credit is due--his role as Dorian Gray in The League of Extraordinary Gentleman? Great. I was one of the few people that actually enjoyed that movie. Probably because I was just tickled by the irony of the fact that Dorian Gray was a lot more like Lestat than Queen Of The Damned's Lestat ever was. 

Moving on--Aaliyah, who played the man-hating ancient Queen Akasha, was actually one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie. She's got that whole vampire swag going on, so I can appreciate that. And she's just as campy and creepy as she needs to be. Fine by me. But then we move to the next in line female protagonist--Jesse Reeves, played by Marguerite Moreau. Jesse was an annoying little Mary Sue in the books, and she's an even more irritating annoying little Mary Sue in the movie. And she ruined a perfectly good gay romance. There is nothing I like about Jesse. The last actor I'll mention is Vincent Perez, who played Lestat's...maker (it hurts me just to say that), Marius. Aaliyah aside, Marius was the best part of the movie. Hands down. He was completely insane and flamboyant in all the right places. You go, Vincent Perez. The long and short of it is this: I hated this movie. But only because I have very fond memories of the book. My suggestion to anyone who isn't familiar with the book would be to probably see the movie first. And then you can tell me if it makes a good movie on its own, or you can join me in ceremoniously burning the DVD and scattering its ashes. 

"Still whining, Louis?"

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (1994)

A confession. I'm a big Anne Rice fan. And when I say "I'm a big Anne Rice fan", I mean "I'm a big fan of her early work, before she rediscovered religion and subsequently fell off her rocker". Not to say there's anything bad about rediscovering faith...it's just that Anne Rice manages to put a psycho crazy spin on everything she does. That aside, Interview with the Vampire is a genuinely good book. It's got a truly creepy gothic tone, it deals with complicated moral issues, and the vampires don't sparkle. If you want a good gothic novel--Dracula style--I'd highly recommend picking Interview up. As for the rest of the series, well, it's enjoyable, but it's also a fascinating peak into the steady decline of Anne Rice's sanity. All that said, I was reluctant to see the movie. Especially with Tom Cruise's name tagged along in it. The skeptic in me told me to stay away, but the curious cat in me had to check it out. And let me tell you: worth it. Ten times over. 

The real master in this movie is Neil Jordan. Hands down. He collaborated with the author to get a good script, and then he delivered. Lord of the Rings aside, Interview with the Vampire has to be the best book-to-movie translation I've ever seen. Forget the fact that he alters a couple scenes--that's expected in these kind of deals. What is really impressive is the fact that Neil Jordan manages to translate the tone of the book. The rich, gothic, New Orleans atmosphere. He nails it. Completely. I've seen movies that have managed to do relatively good successful translations of book-to-movie by simply keeping in as much of the book as they can. And sure, I can respect that. But to capture the actual ambience of the book? The heart and soul of the narration? That's a heavy rabbit to pull of the hat, and Neil Jordan makes it look easy. 

Lastly, of course, I have to give props to the actors. I don't know what it is--maybe it's Neil Jordan being awesome again, maybe it's the 90s, maybe it's just the material--but every one of these actors literally disappears inside their roles. Brad Pitt. Huge name, right? You'd recognize him anywhere. Well, maybe not playing the brooding Louis, with his hopeless, passive attitude towards life and his mournful green eyes. Even Antonio Banderas, despite his accent that always sticks out like a sore thumb, blends in completely with the velvet drapes and haunting candelabras. But, amidst all that talent, there are two actors that really steal the show. Tom Cruise and Kristen Dunst. The last two names you would expect on that list, right? Well, let me put it this way: Kristen Dunst was about 10 at the time, and I still think it was the best role of her career. She's one frightening and manipulative little girl. And Tom Cruise as Lestat? Homeboy nails it. Does it help that the character is narcissistic, arrogant, and controlling? Probably. But it's more than that. Tom Cruise plays the colorful and vibrant exterior of the character...as well as the damaged and insecure interior. The chemistry between Cruise and Dunst is killer. Literally. To wrap this bad boy up: if you're looking for a vampire movie with a little less sparkle and a little more awesome, check this one out. 

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.