beglenrice Reviews

Babel (I) (2006)

I finally saw it.. a masterpiece

[10/10 · 6 September 2019]

Wow, I'm embarrassed and thrilled to say how incredible this movie was. I had put off seeing it for years, always vowing to after loving 21 Grams. 13 years later, after ripping Iñarritu for Birdman and Brad Pitt for his acting in general, I must sincerely apologize. Had I known, had I seen this film I might have understood. This movie is poetry, and a great, I say GREAT example of telling a story with what used to be commonly known as a 'plot'. Something happens, which the audience actually sees, that directly leads to complications that the characters must confront and overcome. It checks out believably and in the process you get sucked in. The cast is incredible, from the smallest to the larger roles, with again, a huge retraction from self-important me who criticized Pitt in that horrible Malick film. Pitt is sublime here. He broke my heart.

The Favourite (2018)

Great Performances but Ultimately Sorely Lacking

[6/10 · 10 January 2019]

So much good, so much bad. After wishing it would end, it finally did, and as I always do, I sorted out why I felt so disheartened in the aftermath. Do we make art for its own sake, or should there be a greater purpose? Why tell this story? There is nothing that inspires humanity by it, it's cold and heartless. Yet the performances by Colman, Weisz and Stone are exceptional, it almost constitutes must-see material. Why such a waste? You relate to Stone's desperate position at first, and yet the cruelty she is driven to inflict makes little sense. There is humanity in her performance, but not in the writing. There is no arc in the sense of self-reflection that what she does, the games they play, weigh on their conscious. Once the game is afoot, it's one ploy after another, for what? To gain the good graces of the Queen? To preserve their social status? This is the reason this film falls so flat. It will not allow for some true humanity to play a part. Stone will stop at nothing to gain favor, and she is not written to have any doubt about how her actions will affect Weisz. It's not believable or realistic, though not Stone's fault. Yes, in those days if we only understood the pressure she must have felt to avoid going back to the way things were, being raped ad nauseum in normal peasant life.. That's what we're told to buy, and even if it were true, there is more complexity to that than this film is willing to explore. When those don't land, we start to wonder.. Why the irritating commitment to fish bowl shots? Why the historically anachronistic irreverence? It's fun to someone writing it perhaps, and 'funny', but it only serves to weaken any truth the film was close to touching upon. A waste. Makes you think, yes. So I gave it six stars out of ten. The performances, from all three (lead) actors are worth the price of admission. But this film has little to really say about anything. It strengthens the general understanding that our world is horrible. But I think we can do much better, and telling this story with more vulnerability and honesty instead of the commitment to absurdity, comedy, vulgarity, and flair would have honored the amazing acting that saves the film from complete future anonymity.

Roma (2018)

Best Movie of the Year? Maybe The Best Movie I've Ever Seen

[10/10 · 18 December 2018]

The best thing to do if you haven't seen this movie is to stop reading anything online and just go see it as soon as you can.

I didn't read anything about this movie before seeing it except that Roma referred to the Colonia in Mexico City. I highly recommend not reading anything about it. Just go to a theater and enter into the world Cuaron creates for you and watch what happens.

I walked out of the theatre having difficulty breathing. It was so good, so powerful, it took about an hour for me to get it together afterwards.

This is a masterpiece. I don't even want to say anything else because I don't want to rob anyone of discovering it the way I did. I can't wait to talk with someone who saw the movie about the movie. Despite wanting to write all about how good it was here, I'm just going to encourage people to see it, and hope we can talk about it in person. He did it. He made great art. Great art changes lives. Thank you Mr. Cuaron.

Mother! (2017)

Metaphors are Not Movies

[1/10 · 13 July 2018]

(with as much emphasis as possible) OBVIOUSLY this is High Concept.

If it was so smart, it could have been more subtle. Think about it.

I understand the attempts at metaphor. The reason why they don't work is because nothing about this movie resembles anything real. For one thing, in the real world, it's not ALL HORRIBLE. There are nice moments. They contrast this ridiculous depiction of creation. There is beauty. For example, I never believed the relationship between Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem for a second. There is nothing 'true' about this, there is nothing believable about this. If it actually seemed like they loved each other, maybe it might pull me in a little. Maybe it's intentional they don't really love each other, as it shows she's just recycled, but this still doesn't represent humanity, or our experience on earth, where there is some ambiguity about how people love each other, there is some love by degrees. Here there are no degrees. It just doesn't ring true at all. So forced, so painful to watch, because it doesn't seem genuine.

This movie is a nightmare, and intended to be so. Well done by the standards of it resembling a nightmare. In terms of resembling a movie, it's horrible, and you honestly wish you hadn't seen it. It violates you. I'm sure this pleases someone, maybe Aronofsky himself. But I've seen all of his movies and know he's too talented for just that. He must know this is garbage. He must have done it on purpose. Noah was so beautiful, in my opinion, in that it explored what kind of humanity we choose to be. So well acted, so passionately well-done, such a great movie. Aronofsky got ripped for it on all sides. It didn't please anyone but the few who actually have the capacity to think without overwhelming bias. I think Mother! was his answer. It was a giant expletive. It wasn't smart, if there was creative intelligence involved, it failed. There is purpose behind having intelligence, and those who have it and choose to use it must do so with something to achieve. There is function. It's not completely arbitrary, otherwise the value of what intelligence actually is would make no sense.

See Noah, Black Swan, and Requiem for a Dream, they are incredible films.

Please Mr. Aronofsky, keep making movies. But tell a story for an audience again. I know you can do whatever you want, but think about it. When you serve others, you serve yourself.

Manchester by the Sea (2016)

It's good but why all the..

[6/10 · 19 December 2016]

This is written for people who have already seen the film. Holding the audience captive in suspense as to what is the dark beyond in the main character's life does nothing. It slows down the movie and makes it tedious. When writers contrive these flashback-to-present scenes, it has to have a big payoff, or what's the point? In general, telling this story mostly chronologically would have served the pacing and sense of the film much better. After an hour or so into the film we finally know 'what happened' and finally we can really just watch the movie. The movie is about how a guy recovers from a tragedy by facing the prospect of becoming his nephew's guardian. But you don't get to be in on that until it's almost too late. It's stupid. The relationship between the uncle and nephew does turn out to be quite interesting and worth watching once you get there. Before then it's a conceptual writer's device to jump back and forth in time to somehow make the movie more suspenseful or something. Once the tragedy is revealed the movie becomes much more cohesive and for me, a pleasure to watch. Overall I think it is good, it's just perplexing as to why writers go to such great lengths to invent concepts that don't serve to tell the story well. Being artistic is mistaken for contriving conception. Oh well. It's still pretty good, with solid acting compensating for writer/director ego.

Noah (2014)

This is an outstanding film!!! Don't believe the fake reviews

[10/10 · 1 April 2014]

I saw Noah a couple nights ago and was so impressed. It took a story and asked some difficult questions about humanity all the while asking ourselves to decide which version of it we prefer to live out in our own lives. It's genius! I came online here expecting other people to have similar reactions. Perhaps not surprisingly, however, there are many extremely (!) negative reviews. I have read a few and sincerely believe some of these people did not see the movie, but are religious extremists with some kind of agenda. It is sad to imagine that people are trying to rip a movie that intelligently and entertainingly engages us in asking tough questions about hope and love and what we really are.. But then some of these people are the same kind represented in the movie as the barbaric, selfish hordes who are only think of themselves and have little logic on which to base their opinions. Bottom line, don't listen to the religious fanatics, go see this great movie! By the way, in case this is of any interest, I am a Christian. My father is a pastor and I was raised reading the stories of Genesis since I was a youth. I hope people of all faiths, atheists, Christians, etc., will see this film because it inspires us to look at each other with compassion. It inspires us to want to choose to support a world where we embrace each other, not hate each other. It's amazing (and then again, maybe not so much) that many people fail to understand this movie and what might be its message as they also fail to understand the Bible and what might be its message: "Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God, and everyone who loves is born of God, and knows God. He who loves not, knows not God, for God is love." 1 John 4:7,8

Philomena (2013)

The Best of 2013

[10/10 · 11 February 2014]

I don't usually feel compelled to write positive reviews (which says something about me I guess), but after seeing all the Best Picture nominees this year, I just wanted to say that I feel that this is far and away the best. Just brilliant, moving, engrossing, everything you want in a movie. Go see it. Judi Dench is absolutely heartbreaking and deserves the Oscar. I just watched August: Osage County and Meryl is amazing in it but Ms. Dench takes this to another level. I have never seen her so magnificent. Steve Coogan more than holds his own, and I am surprised he wasn't nominated (at least his screenplay was). He plays the cynicism yielding to genuine vulnerability and realistic heroism so admirably. So well done and believable. I thought this year was one of the worst ever but Philomena has saved it. Of course it comes from the movie I was least motivated to see. If there is anything negative to say it is whomever tried to market this movie failed, and the title could be less nebulous, because this is really kind of a thriller and much more exciting than it appears from the promotional materials. Great work and thank you Mr. Frears, Ms. Dench, and Mr. Coogan (and other less high-profile but equally deserving people)

American Hustle (2013)

Bells and Whistles but Nothing to Care About

[4/10 · 16 December 2013]

There is a very simple way to put this: I didn't believe it. That sums up the movie for me. Yes, there is all the razzle dazzle you can imagine. But there is nothing at the heart of this film. In Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter, for example, I was an instant believer, I bought in immediately, and loved every second of the ensuing ride. Maybe I could tell from the trailers that we were going back to LaLa land territory. Schmooze, slick, and schtick. That's what this movie is. I was literally falling asleep. Because I never cared for a second, because I knew it was fake, the world never invited me in. Perhaps opening the movie with the old 'start halfway through the movie and then go back and show how they got to that point' tactic failed at bringing me believably along. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. The bottom line is I feel like I was never invited into a believable world. I guess it's just not that kind of movie. I had come to have high expectations after Russell's last two outings, which were basically celluloid cocaine. In those two, I was emotionally invested, in the reality, of how believable it was, and then everything else clicked. The snappy dialogue, the electric energy, the rockin' soundtrack, etc., all supported and enhanced the story, because there was a foundation laid. The believability comes from the characters and their relationships, set up by a story, or plot. Apparently Mr. Russell has lost the need for a plot as he is purported to have said when asked by Christian Bale whether the impromptu dialogue would change the story. While having a passion for characters and relationships is great, the story is an equally important element, and one that is lost here. This movie is thematically all over the place. There is little gravitas or gravity that keeps pulling us in its direction. We wander aimlessly through it, like a pimply teenager, awestruck at the glamour, not noticing that nothing is actually happening. This movie is all fluff. My favorite W.H. Auden quote also sums it up: "What the mass media offers is not popular art but entertainment, which is intended to be consumed like food, forgotten, and replaced by a new dish." The same could not be said about The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook. So far 2013 is a bad vintage.

Nebraska (2013)

Our Hope Wanes

[4/10 · 21 November 2013]

For a while there I thought Alexander Payne was the best director in the world. He hit the bullseye with About Schmidt and Sideways telling compelling, entertaining stories about 'real' people. He was so anti-Hollywood, showing the side of life no one 'wants to see', but never allowing concept or style to overwhelm or replace the story. The story had been the backbone of the film, and those stories were great. There is a lot of quirk and heart and good intent with The Descendants and Nebraska, but they are not engaging stories. They may be stories, but Mr. Payne's flair has caught up with himself, it seems. His last two films have relied on what have become tricks, using set decoration minutia, witty, surprising dialogue, casting real-looking people (or non-actors in many cases), uncharacteristic and shocking sexual overtures made by unlikely candidates. Those things worked in About Schmidt and Sideways (and Election) because the good stories those movies told were only highlighted by those details and comic turns, not supported by them. In The Descendants it seemed Mr. Payne had gone soft and cast Clooney in a typical-Clooney role (just a great guy, what a great guy he is!), unlike Nicholson in About Schmidt in a role we had never imagined he would play (and play so well). The Hawaii land plot a diverting and unnecessary distraction and contrivance, the heart-tugging classic father/daughter relationship, the glamour of the locale, the ultimate graciousness and forgiveness, all basically a reversal of Payne's style. Like he went Hollywood. He was critically lauded and nominated for awards as his other films had been. But it stopped mattering, because now it was just mediocre, by the standards Payne had set for himself. He probably knew that and made Nebraska as his rebuttal to himself. The film almost punishes us by its lack of dimensionality. We know where this is going and it is not surprising. Painfully slow without demonstrating its need for such, not even making literal sense at times, the movie never gains any steam, there is no rising action, it is a big flat line across the screen. It resorts to the aforementioned tricks to distract us from realizing that, while this may be called a story, it is not a compelling one, and one that does not take risks. It uses tricks. Example of a trick: The younger son's girlfriend is intentionally unattractive and overweight. We're supposed to think this lends some credibility to the realism of the film. 'Oh, isn't that interesting! We're not seeing a Hollywood starlet in the girlfriend role! She's ugly and overweight! How interesting!' This is just set decoration. Such tricks worked in his previous films, but not here, because it is a mask. What does this trick accomplish? Establishing the son's character as.. Sympathetic, pathetic, realistic, weak..?? Who knows. Who cares. Without creating a great story, these choices are merely interesting, but no longer important. Why isn't the story great? The writing and the plot. They must continue shooting itself in the foot, because the protagonist is never-endingly taciturn, and while we can sense there is more going on inside him, the movie intentionally makes us guess at why he will not let go of a ridiculous claim to the million dollars. Is it because he's senile? Is it because he's poorly educated and isn't intelligent enough to render common sense to the matter? Why doesn't he get it? He's out of it? We don't know. We don't ever know. The movie doesn't want us to know. If we knew, we would know that there is no reason, because it's all contrived, it's a device. I am only so critical because I was such a big fan of his other films. I realize that is possibly unfair. But this is the Internet, we can write whatever we want. Who cares. But I really care, so maybe you're like me out there, who was so touched and inspired by Mr. Payne's previous work. I was so desperately looking forward to The Descendants, like I needed it, I needed to be affected, I needed to see a great story in the movie theater. Perhaps it's unreasonable to expect greatness. But in this day and age, it is so rare, we have only a special few that are capable, Mr. Payne being one. So despite my complaints, I hope Mr. Payne has a great story to tell again some day. In the meantime, we have got to pick up the slack, myself included.

In the Bedroom (2001)

Best Performance I Have Ever Seen

[10/10 · 6 February 2013]

There are many things to be said about this film. It's twelve years later. So I'll just say this: Tom Wilkinson's acting performance is the best I have ever seen. I am a die-hard Daniel Day-Lewis fan so that's hard for me to say, in a way. I saw this movie when it came out in 2001 and just watched it again for the first time since. When I first saw it, Tom Wilkinson blew me away, and his performance was just as amazing tonight. How does one capture the subtlety of being a normal human being confronted with the murder of a son? Much consideration is given to actors who portray extreme characters, showing their range. But the most difficult and amazing thing to do as an actor, in my opinion, is play someone who is not so. Not to be average or boring, but to be so real and so believable that it opens up a world of empathetic truth due to the foundation of reality it creates. Watch it. He masterfully embodies the character, in this circumstance, to a level beyond believable. He is so good in it that it speaks volumes beyond the themes of the film. Sissy Spacek is also deserving of high praise. Somehow they both capture, to me, what a marriage really would look like in that situation. High praise of course to Todd Field for his superb direction. If anyone cares about acting, or telling a great story, I recommend this film with all of my being.

Django Unchained (2012)

if only QT had learned from IB

[6/10 · 7 January 2013]

Was anyone else completely floored by Inglorious Basterds? Asking themselves, "Did Tarantino really write this?" The scenes were so realistic and compelling, without any need to dress it up with humor or violence. The opening scene at the farm, for instance. It wasn't funny but perhaps the best scene I've ever seen in a Tarantino film. The film ended with cartoonish violence and showed we were all duped into actually caring. I thought it would difficult for Tarantino to overcome his puerile tendencies. So along comes Django and it takes five big steps back. No sense of truth, outrageous, crazy, entertaining for sure, but without that needed element of reality to support the audience's entry into a believable world. Without that assurance, we just are watching a stupid though interesting three-hour mess. There is no meaning in this movie, and though it tries to suggest it, it's merely the excuse to show us what the director really cares about. You can guess what that is. It's not anything worth repeating or discussing further. Shame, because Inglorious Basterds showed he had talent. Unless that was a ghost writer..

Germinal (1993)

Good Intentions Perhaps, But No, Sorry, This Sucks

[3/10 · 16 April 2012]

Making a two-hour film out of a 500 page book is tough, sure. But this version stinks. I'm sure someone really thought (Claude Berri?) this would be good. The problem is the film scratches the surface of the world Zola created. An obvious example is the mine, Le Voreux itself, in the beginning is described as a kind of living, breathing, horrific thing that swallows humans by the cartload. The trepidation of Etienne in going down to work is described in the book with such detail that when you watch the film the reality of what horror it must have really been is reduced to a simple look of anxiety on Etienne's face while he comfortably waits to descend. There is no trace of the idea of Le Voreux being a monstrous man-swallower. Missing this thematic point has nothing to do with a film's running length. It's a classic movie rendering of a book, without flavor, without guts, without imagination. The casting is atrocious. Etienne is supposed to be twenty-one years old, this guy looks well into his thirties (he was 40 in 1992). It's an important factor. Gerard Depardieu is fat as Maheu, in the book these poor people were starving to death, skinny to the point of emaciation, yet here is Depardieu looking very well fed. Who said Depardieu was physically perfect for the role? Are you nuts? These people were starving to death. The way they portrayed the poor was so prettied up, the younger sister was hunchbacked by malnutrition in the book but here is a cute healthy looking girl of course, their hair is clean and clothes relatively tidy, they look like modern people dressed up. If they wanted to make it look real, these people would have looked like they were suffering physically, as Zola described them. Malnourished, with bad skin, teeth, etc. Berri or whomever didn't have the guts to really show what they must have looked like, it would have been too extreme. Yet the extremity is the book's central character in a way. Without that, this is garbage. Another example, in the mines, in the book, the characters would have to crawl on their hands and knees to get to the seam in places, in pitch-black darkness at points, and Etienne would have suffered all sorts of bruises and cuts, but in the movie they just stroll on up to the spot. The characters and setting in the movie do no justice to how the book describes things like the temperature, freezing cold one minute and dying of heat the next. There are many examples like this. I had to turn it off. The acting wasn't that good either, not necessarily their fault, when they're forced to generalize things that were compressed and not naturally developed in the film the way they were in the book. Look, of course it's difficult to adapt a book, especially a good book, but if you can't do it, just don't. You're embarrassing yourself. The contrast between the classes in this book and how it completely illuminates their difference make the story make sense. This movie unfortunately doesn't come close. Only stupid 21st/20th Century minds from the Civilized West could actually think the poor characters in the movie were shown realistically as impoverished. We have no idea. That's why you read the book. Make the movie if you have the courage to do it justice. Without showing the real conditions, the desperation of the people to strike doesn't make sense, they have to be willing to die, because they're dying already.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Garbage

[19 July 2011]

If this film was simply about the struggle between a father and son, it might have been great. Instead, it badly attempts to include themes of God and creation as if they were intrinsic to the story. While those themes, according to certain people, are more than relevant, this movie's treatment of them is beyond horrible. The incredible shots of nature merely mask the writer's failure to truly include what is suggested. The threadbare plot turns out to be an excuse to be moody and cinematic. The weepy end-before-the-beginning-sappy-taking-the-audience- for-granted-and-stupid opening scenes infuriate a genuinely appreciative viewer. Which son dies? How does it happen? At nineteen? For the next two hours we wonder if there is a story here or if it is a montage of Mr. Malick's dream shot list. It turns out to be the latter. I admired young Jack's performance. He made Pitt look like an amateur. Brad Pitt cannot act, he is unnatural, he is self-conscious, and is obviously 'acting'. Credit to the line, "Why should I be good when you're aren't," or something to that effect, ostensibly referring to God. Don't waste your time. Then again, certain people liked this. The tree of life? Potentially riveting. It's relevance in the film? Non-existent. You're crazy if you try to rationalize this.. If you have to make the audience stretch that much, you're full of yourself.

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010)

Hopkins. Hopkins

[23 October 2010]

This is a good movie and I would watch five minutes of a Woody Allen movie rather than see 95% of the movies out there. Not to get sidetracked, but it's not ambitious so you don't have to know what happens exactly, you don't have to have it gift-wrapped, it just is, but it didn't set itself up to be groundbreaking philosophical conceptual contrived tripe. It's just a film, as Mr. Allen reminds us with his pretentiously mundane American voice-over narrator. Which turns the focus onto the characters and relationships. Which is a good place to be when you have great actors. I really enjoyed the film. But the main thing I felt compelled to say (and I haven't written anything on here in years) is that Anthony Hopkins is so good, I haven't been able to stop thinking about it. It's hardly a 'crowning achievement' to his career, but it is to me, because he so earnestly and vulnerably performed this role, it defied many things (I'll name two): 1) his own career and his tendency to portray epic characters and all that intelligent bravado within.. in the movie he is completely defeated without even a proper stage, a flimsy (intentionally) comedy he has no business being in (of course he does), in which his character is confronted with mortality and insignificance, and ultimately the relevant question I know he must ask himself, and seeing him deal with that in the smallness of the medium was astounding. Truly astounding. Because also 2) He shatters the Woody Allen film formula stereotype. I was expecting the Anthony Hopkins version of Woody Allen, and there was some of that, a la Kenneth Branaugh in Celebrity. But whether it was all Hopkins or all Allen or both his portrayal rejects the typical neurotic response to Allen's comio-dramatic situations and instead shows us a golden vein of truth that for me was completely unexpected, impeccably performed and very moving. I had been a huge Hopkins fan since Nixon and in recent years had become leery of his projects to the extent I didn't bother to consider going to see them anymore. But I knew the combination of Woody Allen and he would be something special. For Allen fans, to me his acting breaks the Allen mold, crushes it, and I left the theater a bit unnerved and touched. I haven't read anyone else comment on this in a similar way and had to say something.

Great Expectations (1998)

Who wrote the Goofs section? (idiot)

[10/10 · 10 January 2007]

The scene where Walter is talking about Michelangelo and his lips aren't moving was done that way INTENTIONALLY. Cuaron is brilliantly creating the empty meaningless world of elitism and how Finn is alienated from it. That's all I wanted to say, but apparently I have to say more to fill a quota of ten lines. All right. I'll turn to the topic of my opinion of the film in general. This is a great movie. It contains fantasies I'll probably never have but are so romantic and passionate. Finn chasing after her barefoot, running in the pouring rain to find her, the kiss in the rain.. I knew once what it felt like do those kinds of things. And why it felt the way it did. It's been eleven years. When I first saw the movie in 1998, I remember feeling so moved by it, I parked my car in a strange place near the highway in Santa Ana (Main Place, I think) and just stood there, sad, feeling like everything was gone and never to return. Nine years later, I wasn't wrong.

Heading South (2005)

"Great" piece of work

[8/10 · 1 August 2006]

It's difficult for audience members to watch movies like this without subjecting the film to a standard for film, not art. They watch dumbly, unable to appreciate, comparing and analyzing why they don't see relevance to their lives, and ultimately not connecting. This film, I find, to be extremely good, telling a very real story (although there are numerous anachronisms to the late 70's/early 80's time period), and when such films pursue such detailed reality within the construct of of a story-telling medium, the results are dazzling. The setting is Haiti, with its poverty and glorious island paradise, there are political tensions, there are racial problems. There are the older women paying young Haitian men for sex, they have histories. There are many circumstances. The beauty of it is, you can envision the entire history of Ellen (Charlotte Rampling's character) in an entirely different movie with as much depth as you may find anywhere, credit due to her acting and the writer. You can see so many other stories being untold and told at once, if you let go of your cinematic prejudices. Legba's past is never disclosed, but it's at once known without knowing, and even the 'reality' monologues, questionably interspersed, they're revealing as much as they are saying by what they're not saying. Audience members have difficulty allowing their imaginations to read between the lines and fully engross themselves. The specificity of this film makes its themes universal and undeniably relevant to anyone, including me, a 30 year old white American artist. There are questionable cinematic devices to a cynical viewer, but ultimately the film stands on its own two feet and proclaims certain hidden truths. Shall I name them? No. I recommend this film highly to humble, intellectual minds who appreciate humanity. I especially appreciated what I viewed as the fundamental difference between two people from different backgrounds who shared the same passion. Ellen and Brenda both love Legba. Ellen, the English woman, understands the circumstances and resigns herself to them without hope, while Brenda, the awkward and passionate American, lets her heart bleed all over the place with hope. Hope and faith, and belief in miracles, a truly innate and indigenous American characteristic, while cynicism, resolution, calculated and methodical, stereotypes the Brits. Each has their downfall, but the love remains from the heart. I liked this film very much.

Eversmile New Jersey (1989)

Unbelievable

[7/10 · 9 August 2002]

I rented this because of Daniel-Day Lewis, who stars as a traveling dentist. All I can say is that it is so bizarre you should not watch it alone. You might find yourself going insane. It's not that the movie has any strange or bizarre effects, it's completely straightforward. To find out what I'm talking about you'll have to see for yourself. I'll also add the Day-Lewis was incredible, and he is the best actor I have ever seen.