I am a college student who has some free time, and an insatiable, ravenous obsession with film. I have a wide variety of tastes and I try for quality films, but I almost never say Not Interested. I love mind bending films, screwball comedies from the 30's and 40's, romantic comedies, classic and low budget horror, coming of age films, silent slapstick, feel good, and generally 70's cinema.
I rate films with a mixture of "What the film is" versus how much I enjoyed it. Below is my rating system.
4: It was enjoyable.
3-3.5: Had flaws, but still slightly enjoyable.
2-2.5: Severly lacking.
0-1.5: Worse than a bowel movement made of starving piranhas.
I say yes to friend requests if you have your profile filled out. If you really love cinema and are here for that purpose, you should have reviews, ratings, etc. As a young woman I hold the right to not be randomly sent dick pictures and messages detailing your urges. Keep it in your pants; this is the internet, not the couch in your cousin Rick's basement.
I keep my reviews pretty short,except on a couple films where I just couldn't help myself.
See you around whippersnapper.
A sorrowful tale about the implications of being a runaway from life, Jack Nicholson gives a stellar performance as Robert, a former piano prodigy. Robert is a very interesting character, a man who runs from everything in the world, just so he can be alone and selfish. He runs off from his wealth and his family because he can't deal with his father's disapproval. He runs from his girlfriend, his job, from everything that dissatisfies him only because he wants his life to be purposeful, for something to come out of nothing. He doesn't want to feel trapped by money, and yet he resents anyone who believes he's as lowdown as they are. His selfishness becomes his undoing, and his tendency to run forces him to choose between doing the right thing and the wrong. A stellar supporting cast, amazing premise, and a powerful performance from Nicholson makes this character study an exercise in the contention of human error.
Relationships degrade and diminish in their returns, over a long period of time. No one knows that better than married couple Meg (Duncan) and Nick (Broadbent). Married for thirty years, in debt, anchored by a druggie son, and about to begin retirement, their marriage needs a bit of work. On vacation in Paris the pair explore the city and learn from one another what it really means to love and be loved. They are both over-the-top in love with one another, and also contemptuous of each other, in a very strange portrayal of a dysfunctional relationship. They are also very adolescent in their escapades, including hitting each other, having petty fights, and running after one another in chase more than once. They become alive in the city of light, and re-learn what it is to care for another person. Bold in its execution as well as its inception, this film is not only important for its truthfulness, but playfulness.
Though this film isn't actually all that funny, some of the characters are flat, and there are many stereotypes and clichés in the script, there's something very likable and real about this film. Henry (Klein), our lead character, wants to be a great writer, and so he reads and quotes and lauds the craft of writing, but doesn't do the work, and therefore has nothing to show for it. Hannah (Cuoco) doesn't read a lot but she does the work and good things happen for her. This parallel makes up the entirety of the film and inspires a lot of the character driven action, which is really well thought out. Some of the other characters didn't feel all too realistic, including the Mooney's (Walsh and Polo), who were played too over the top and flighty. William (Bennett) was a great stereotype of the pretentious writer who doesn't write, and Farina as Butzin shows the gritty writers who still exist but can't hack it among the top dogs. The main reason this film is loathed, besides that's it's not ever funny, is because it's a mockumentary that looks like a regular movie. It's not shot like a documentary, the editing is polished, the crew is somehow everywhere they are and shoot everything perfectly. It's really off-putting when other characters apparently see the cameras and ask about them, and you as the audience have forgotten they exist in the first place. Though there are some great ideas and characters, this was just too convoluted to work.
A very strange and unabashed tale of the eccentric, John Irving's novel of the same name has been adapted into the story of T.S. Garp, a man whose life has never been normal. Raised by a nurse who raped a dying soldier, and works in a boys' dormitory, Garp finds his footing amongst writers, falls in love, and has an entire lifetime of adventures along the way. This film is bigger than life and contains strange incidents that make up Garp's life, including marital stress, death, assassination, heartbreak, and a gaggle of Ellen James' admirers. Supported in his life is his professor wife (Hurt), children, transsexual friend Roberta (Lithgow), mother, and other friends. The story is very strange, and by the end you will think so too, and yet it's also exquisite in its weirdness, its ability to shift and change as it adapts to new characters, new challenges, and new ways of thinking. It's simply a beautiful film that feels like a novel in poetic repose.
It's commendable that this film tried to shed light on the horrifying influence of conservative Christian values on Uganda. I think a lot of what this film showcases needed to be seen and speaks a lot about the political affiliation that these religions push on countries that don't have the same rights and freedoms as those protected in other countries. The interviews were solid, and following the IHOP missionaries was intriguing, but the correlation between these people and Uganda needed to be made clearer. There is legislation in Uganda against homosexuality, but there was nothing about the violence enacted against these people, the discrimination, and the countless deaths. The funeral scene was a good start and showed human kindness exists in Uganda, but it didn't show the true impact of these people and their heinous causes. A very beautiful film overall, it still showed the Ugandan societal landscape, and what has changed its features in the past thirty years.