Excruciatingly faux-na´ve and sentimental...
Yet another irrelevant, absurd "review" from the self-adoring half-wits at the New Yorker.
Jul 28 - 04:48 PM
Perhaps in a few spots, but overall I feel like the sentimentality is at least expressed imaginatively enough that we don't mind.
Nov 26 - 04:03 AM
It's not sentimental, you idiot. Do you know what that word even means? Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. And what about it is excruciating? It's a fucking slow-paced film, that completes a variety of realistic aspects with sedulity. F-ck you, Richard Stern. Wait, your not Richard Stern. What's it with Richards'?
Jan 27 - 07:39 PM
Sentimental- Of or prompted by feelings of tenderness, sadness, or nostalgia. Tenderness and sadness were huge parts of this movie.
Jun 10 - 10:05 PM
Wow. What a killjoy. I thought this film did all the right things in the right ways. It was simple and honest, *especially* emotionally; "faux-na´ve" is definitely not an appropriate descriptor. Actually, I don't even know what that means. But I don't thing Brody knows what that means, either, so that's okay.
Feb 4 - 07:59 PM
Brave, I can't agree more, only self sorry prententious people with over-inflated ideas of self IQ would enjoy this film. Or the stupid.
Feb 16 - 12:47 PM
Bravo, I can't agree more, only self sorry prententious people with over-inflated ideas of self IQ would enjoy this film. Or the stupid. The picture-louge goes like this - "This is a cat in 1983. This is a lion in 1955. No. A beaver. My penis in 1981. My dad's penis in 1965. No 1985" and is what happens (sadly) when indie meets mainstream.
Feb 16 - 12:51 PM
I agree with this reviewer; this movie put me to sleep.
Mar 2 - 09:25 PM