Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Zlatica One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

sorinapha This episode had some great high points, for instance, the surprise appearance by Christopher Lloyd, but all in all, this episode just felt sloppy. Sloppy direction, sloppy acting from the lead character, who was decidedly out-shone by his co-stars. Seeing Tony Todd was great, but he was utterly underutilized. The special effects were sloppy, but I blame that more on the fact it's a television episode than anything else.My verdict? I'd love to see a full-length adaptation of this story, but this one was rather middle-of-the road and a bit disappointing. I just feel as if so much more could have been done with such a thrilling plot, and most of it fell short.

theglovesareoff Everyone is a critic on this site, which is probably an ironic first line for me to start this review with. But if you've found this title, then you're probably into horror, and you're probably willing to approach this film different than other people.This film is good. The acting is great for horror, good for any other genre. The technical aspects are not so cheesy that it alienates the viewers, and the plot is wonderful. The characters and the story make for a great time watching this film. Compared to the rest of the series, this film stands out as one of the best. It's an even more enjoyable watch because the characters are self-aware of their situation, and if you're a writer yourself or just enjoy the process of the creation of art, then you'll chuckle at a lot of the quick exchanges between the characters.I think that everything in this film is really well done. The violence, the makeup, the characters, the sex, all of it is appropriate and poignant. If you're into horror, this is a definite must see. If you're not into horror, then this is a film that is a good hour of entertainment. Either way, this film is good and certainly does not deserve any slams that it has been given.

Michael_Elliott Valerie on the Stairs (2006) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Mick Garris directed this film from the Masters of Horror series. An unpublished writer moves into a building for unpublished writers where he begins to see the spirit of a girl named Valerie. The writer starts to investigate these sightings and then realizes that a demon (Tony Todd) is also in the building. This ghost story had an interesting secret that gets revealed half way through the film and I think the movie would have worked a lot better had the film started with the secret and then moved forward. The first half of the movie really doesn't offer any shocks and the comedy bits about writers really doesn't come off too funny. Christopher Lloyd co-stars. Adapted by a Clive Barker story.

refined_cujo-1 Some of the reviews are negative for this entry to season 2's masters of horror. But there is a lot going on in this episode and I really think, like Chocolate (also very good) this one deserves a second watch.The performances are all fine, some better than others. The photography is fantastic, each frame very well constructed- Garris really is at his best when he is at his most minimalistic (ie- the scenes with Valerie on the stairs, the main character listening to the sounds in the walls- wandering the halls; with the dutch angles and all).This has Barker all over it and has the feeling and atmosphere of much of that you can find in his Books of Blood, even though this was a story written directly for the screen. The premise is great ( I wont give it away)- but also its greatest deterant... It is a short story premise and it shows. It is the type of thing you can get away with on paper, but when put on film it immediately seems like farce and rushed farce at that. But that having been said, you kind of go along with it. You know its pure self-referential fluff, but its Clive Barker fluff; kind of like some of his short stories (tonally; this one reminded me of The Age of Desire, The Maddonna, and In the Flesh- which were all in their own way, as equally contrived).Some have said that it does not make sense. I really don't agree on this one. I think that many of the people who say it does not make sense are those (perhaps) who are most unlikely to see Barker as anyone other than the "future of horror fiction" as Stephen King slated him as in the late 80's. This film (and it does look like a film more so than many of the other episodes; ironic because Garris primarily works in television) although it bears all the trademarks of horror shlock (grisly murders, blood splatters etc), it has a strong faubist element, an identifiable streak of fantasy; which grants a freedom of storytelling that is more metaphorical, or dare I say it metaphysical than much of Barkers straight horror stuff. This is a story for those who preffered Weaverworld, or Everville and especially Coldheart canyon, than those who loved Hellraiser. The ending is pure evidence of this- I LOVED THE ENDING. I think those who dismiss it as silly are missing the point, and unfortunately - for them- missing great horror fantasy.And just like Garris' prior Masters effort- this one is not straight horror- you have to get that clear. That episode was erotic/telepathic romance- with horror elements (a very nice, and delicate blend), and this one is a dark fantasy (which totally allows for what some have called the elements of the non-sensical)- with even stronger horror grissliness and context.For this reason many have said that Garris is not worthy of his masters of horror title. I think he has. He just uses horror in a manner that is not so derivative and not so obvious; he blends his drinks, rather than pours them straight. For this, I think he should wear his hat well.The effects are generally good. Two major criticisms: the lead is good, but not entirley interesting- which is kind of the point- he ******SPOILER******** is literally a blank sheet of paper onto which the darkness and inevitability of others fiction/perceptions are printed upon. And secondly the dispatch of Todds villain is a little too easy, but again- he burns as easy as paper- which is again the point.Valerie herself. She is sexuality, but not really sexy. This is what makes the scenes of erotica either deservedly awkward or somewhat disturbing- it really got to me. Eerie. Like Tarantino has said "Nobody gets under your skin like clive barker." I loved Todd's villain and the apparent cheesiness of his look. He really had the 50's style element to him- which is clearly a part of the narative.I really liked this episode. there is far more going on than what others have said. This is one entry, like Chocolate that tastes better and better the deeper you go.