Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Bea Swanson This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

p-stepien After hearing so much about Hal Hartley and being an art-house fanatic I deftly jumped onto all the titles I could find. I started off with the utterly disappointing "No Such Thing", watched a couple of his shorts and finally got to watching one of his most known movies - "The Book of Life"... and I much regrettably say I have lost all my faith in this director.Story definitely has potential: Jesus, the Devil and Christ's assistant Madgelina discuss the end of days. Jesus is having second doubt's, so whilst stuck up in a hotel he tries to contemplate his actions.I'll ignore the low budget and lack of proper cinematography (done on a hi-def digital camera), as with these types of movies you have to take it at face value. I can even ignore the pathetic acting of most of the cast (although seeing how sub-par most actors are in Hal Hartley's movies I am led to believe he is incompetent of directing actors, which sorely drops his value as a movie auteur). But I just can not gloss over the mostly abysmal dialogue, lack of pace and no story-build. I sincerely searched for anything worth real mention in this movie and the best I came up with was the immensely interesting plot and quite decent story. Also some of the dialogues are intelligent and intriguing, although most of them fall flat as a pancake of superficiality.It is impossible however not to wonder if Hal Hartley wouldn't have made a much better career as a writer or even a playwright, given his lacking concept of filmmaking. As a play this story would work perfectly and after some more thought put into the dialogues it could be a brilliant theatre spectacle. All in all however it looks like a poor man's "Dogma" (nods to both von Trier as well as Kevin Smith's flick) gone awry.

Charles Herold (cherold) Hey, remember when Hal Hartley was brilliant? What a time that was. I'd say the Book of Life was when things really started going downhill, but I will say that at least he went uphill from this one. A movie that looks like it was filmed on someone's cell phone wouldn't have to be a bad thing if it was distinguished by an interesting story and dialog, but alas, those are missing, along with Hartley's spare, quirky dialog. In their place is tedious exposition on themes of Christian end of times and a trite story of a modern Jesus in a quandary, packaged in a trying-to-be-hip modern world where everyone looks like someone out of a Hal Hartley movie. While it picks up a little in its second half, it's never enjoyable, or especially sensible. What the hell happened to you, Hartley?

bob the moo Jesus returns to earth at the end of 1999 with Mary Magdalena in order to carry out the law as approved by his father – opening the book of life and judging the living and the dead according to the law. Meanwhile Satan amuses himself in a bar with a gambler and the good-hearted waitress that has taken to looking after the man. However Jesus has second thoughts and begins to wonder if the letter of the law is a fair approach to take to the humans who have perverted the meaning of what was laid down so many years ago.I have seen this twice now. I watched it a second time because I had completely forgotten what it was about since my first time – my second viewing revealed why this was the case. The film is very arty in presentation, which is partly due to the use of the digital video which allows blurring etc as part of the production. It is also arty in content to the extent that it feels like a student film where they are trying to be deep but only succeed in being pretentious. The plot is not fully explained and any theological reasoning done by Jesus and Satan is best only touched on as deeper thought on the dialogue exposes a weakness and lack of clarity in the logic.The acting is also art-school type that is a surprise to me as a Donovan fan. I know the subject didn't help but I felt he didn't bring Jesus to life (pardon the phrase!). Ryan's Satan is worse as he hams it up – never more laugh inducing when he stops to talk into microphones planted all round the street! PJ Harvey is an interesting Mary but not a good actress. The two humans in the leads (Simonds and Nikaido) are interesting but not really used to any great effect. Their strand of the film is the most interesting but is lost in the latter stages of the film.Overall I accept that this is an experimental film but I had hoped for more from such a talented group – the director along had made me watch it. However the end result is a cross between a pretentious student film and a poor arty theatre production.

Sam-240 This film is probably Hal Hartley's best one. The subject, of a unusual originality, is treated (that's usual with Hal Hartley) with great humor. This characteristic isn't at all the only quality of this film: the fussy frame composition (everything is parallel, until the smallest details), shooting angles, lighting, giving a more supernatural dimension to these blurred images (Jesus' coming down couldn't be filmed in a conventional way), the falsely "poser" acting, are qualities that make this Bible re-reading, carried out in the form of an apocalyptic delirium, essential.