Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

--BE WARNED, HEAVY SPOILERS--The film presents us Julian, a college teacher with an existential predicament, where under the mask of a good, open-minded citizen, that sustains an almost perfect relationship with the nicest and most beautiful woman you've ever met; underneath, there is actually a man that has conflicts with rules and the establishment, as we can see at the beginning of the film where he provocatively burns a flag to stimulate student's reflexion. He believes, naively and egotistically, that everything can work out if sincerity and commitment is above all.When he gets involved with a student, at least platonically, both, her wife Chalice and him, react at the lack of spark and wildness on their apparently perfect relationship, especially because of their promiscuous roommate Malika.That is when you realize how hypocrite Julian is, because only after three years of marriage, he cannot commit and proceeds to question the tradition of monogamy, and double-crosses Chalice to go to the edge by lying to her and introducing his student Elena into the relationship, without telling Chalice that they know each other, that they have feelings for each other and that they are setting her up in order to have a threesome, where no one is supposed to get hurt and where the marriage can stay safe and healthy.Add to that the bicurious past of Chalice, and you have a melodramatic mess, where you cannot feel for the characters because with every and each decision they take, they work towards their own misery. The sick behaviors and acts of the three protagonists, urges for a rational and introspective ending, where there is little space for redemption, because, after all, the three of them destroyed their lives, based only on the factor that they cannot control their impulses.Instead, the writers and the director, refuse to learn to admit wrong, by giving us a ludicrous and implausible conclusion, where roses are red and the sky is blue, even when the destructive three-way relationship cannot get any worse. Which brings the question of why they decided to write this specific script and what did they want to make out of it?As a viewer, it only feels like a waste of time, where we are supposed to sit through the ramblings of unfinished characters of an unfinished story. Why does this film lasts one hour and forty-five minutes? When, from the beginning you just say "they should have known better, the end."Aside from the strong acting by Winnick towards the end of the movie, in a particular scene, the execution of this film is mostly mediocre; that being photography, directing and anything else, with the particularity of the sterile acting by Jeremy London.

Oh, what tangled webs we weave...Instead of just being about sex, this film is an extremely complex and insightful look at relationships and human interactions. The emotions are intensely subjective and raw, making it uncomfortable to watch occasionally. The vulnerability punctures through the screen due to a stellar performance by the entire cast. If you're looking for the average Saturday night sex comedy, than you might want to pass on this one. However, if you're looking for a 103 minute emotional roller-coaster of passion and perplexity, then definitely check this film out. I'm excited to see what William Tyler Smith has in store for us next.

I've seen this story already, in many films; and this film isn't a new take or even a better rendition of the threesome saga that filmmakers find fascinating for some reason.The acting is good and possibly the only reason to watch this film. But, I must say, only one performance sticks out and anyone who's seen it will have to agree. I did some research on the major reviews of the film and the critics seems to agree with me.Mirelly Taylor stays true and honest to her character. She didn't fall into the trap of playing the foreign Spanish sex kitten that was written for her, which most actresses would have. She plays her with elegance and class. She was the most interesting part of the film and it's too bad they didn't develop her story line even more. I've seen Beyond Honor, her other incredible performance that should put her on the map along side the top young actresses in the United States. That was a heart wrenching character that she portrayed with beauty and strength. It's no surprise she was picked as one of the 30 under 30 of 2006. I look forward to watching her in many great films to come.Jeremy London's performance is passable. Kathrine Winniks' pouting and constant melodrama is at times laughable. But I will defend her dedication to the melodramatics; they may be the fault of the direction or the writing. Elisa Donovan is always so cute to watch even when she plays a bitch of a lesbian.All in all, film doesn't pass, but the actors do a good job at saving the film from what was inevitably going to be an un-sexy rendition of a better film: Dreamers.

This film is about a college professor married to a beautiful and loving wife who decided that he wants to try a threesome by inviting one of his students into bed. This film is very painful to watch. What could have been a funny comedy, the film decomposes into a sappy melodrama where the actors spend most of their screen time staring out the window and blubbering as tears roll down their cheeks. The director can not get the actors to convey the inner emotional struggle they are going through. With four writers and two script consultants on the payroll you would think that the script would be the best thing about the film but in fact it is the worst. The lame directing and awkward staging aren't any better. There are a lot of sex scenes in this film but the actors keep their underwear on like they were trying for a PG rating! I've seen hotter sex scenes on network TV.The actors do their best with the situation but the casting is all wrong especially Jeremy London who totally misses the mark. The photography is good but the lighting is flat which makes the actors appear two dimensional.All calendars in the film show 2004 and there are plenty of presidential election notices that make up the set dressing (all anti Bush of course). Seeing how this film took three years to get a DVD release is not surprising.