• Home
  • Meetings
  • Events
  • Blog
  • E-Board
  • Around Boston
  • Join
Northeastern University's Film Enthusiasts Club
.

Marguerite Darcy on Experimenter

10/30/2015

0 Comments

 
Experimenter is a movie about the famous Milgram Experiment -- which every psychology or marketing major student knows about. Social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of tests in the 60s in order to find out how men -- and later on women -- reacted to authority when intentionally hurting someone. He primarily wanted to understand how the Holocaust was made possible -- how “normal” people could go on and kill, and be fine with it, stating they were just obeying orders.

The test goes on like this: out of two participants, one is picked to be teacher, and the other student. The teacher (a random participant) is asked to conduct a memory test on the student (actor, not a real participant) by a scientist (figure of authority). The teacher has to press a button that delivers an electric shock to the student if the latter gives the wrong answer, with every shock being more intense than the previous one. The scientist stays with the teacher the whole time, while the student is in the neighbouring room. The teacher cannot see the student, only partially hear him. As the study goes, the teacher can hear the student (faking) being hurt, screaming, saying he doesn't want to be a part of the study anymore and asking to get the hell out of here. If the teacher tried to bail out, the scientist is to ask him to go on, saying he (the scientist) is responsible for anything that would happen. The study found that an alarming number of teachers went all the way to the final and most powerful shock, with only very few quitting the experiment stating they would not harm the student furthermore.
Picture
Experimenter does a good job at displaying the personal and work lifestyle of Stanley Milgram (Peter Sarsgaard, most recently seen in Black Mass) as he performs his most famous study and other ones throughout his life. But it does a terrible job at everything else. Mainly, the setting is pretty weird: Milgram is guiding us through the movie, voicing over as if he was writing his memories in a diary. But at some point he suddenly faces, and actually talks to the camera while an elephant walks in the background. Yes, a literal elephant. And another time, as Milgram and his wife (Winona Ryder, do you remember Beetlejuice?) visit an old colleague of his -- Pr. Asch, the one behind the Elevator experiment -- the set suddenly turns black and white with rudimentary vintage settings that just seem out of the place. It’s as if the movie was intended to be an hybrid of a documentary, autobiography and biography. And it feels very wrong.

What makes the movie interesting is it shows the actual experiments Milgram did -- good, because that’s the purpose of a biographic movie about a social scientist, right? I’ll only cite four. One: social proof- if a couple of people are standing on the street looking at something in the sky, what are you going to do? Probably stop and look too. Two: Kindness of strangers- Milgram displayed lost letters in different neighborhoods and counted how many were sent back by the strangers who found them. In addition, he tried testing white sounding names in black neighborhoods and vice-versa. The findings showed that people weren’t so nice when it came to send back a letter to someone that wasn’t of your skin color. Three: How many people does it take one person to contact another that s/he doesn’t know? It takes 6. We live in a small world. Four: Taking polaroid picture of people, and... I don’t know, the movie didn’t tell. Kinda frustrating.

There is a disturbing lack of explanation of the conclusion of most of the studies presented. I got to see the studies, I heard some findings, but I had zero explanation about what that actually meant, how this work impacted Milgram’s life, or work, or the scientific body (but hey this article actually sheds light on modern criticism about his most famous experience!) There was zero analysis of Milgram’s findings, which I found very frustrating.

Grade: C-

0 Comments

Marguerite Darcy on Our Brand is Crisis

10/30/2015

0 Comments

 
Our Brand is Crisis tells the story of an American politician PR consultant, Jane (Sandra Bullock; Gravity, among many others), and is set in the middle of a Bolivia divided by a democratic presidential election. Her job is to install a new leader, Castillo, who has actually already been President, but become quite infamous because he nationalized the Bolivian industries. We quickly discover that the main reason Jane agreed to go is because an old enemy of hers, Candy (Billy Bob Thornton, played the President in Love Actually...) is helping the opposition, and poll favorite, Rivera. The movie oversees the presidential campaign, and what it takes to convert people and change their opinion, as well as how dirty people are willing to be in order to win.
Picture
The movie is a more or less subtle critique of the consequences of American “help” on emerging countries -- helping to make a big mess in exchange for big bucks, and taking-off at the end of the contract -- and more largely on politics as a whole. It clearly states that politicians are nothing without their consultants, and that elections are merely a game where the winner is simply the best actor/liar. Faith in humanity, anyone?

Through Jane’s ups and downs, Our Brand is Crisis introduces the questions of how far (literally, in that case) you can go for money, and how liking your job is directly linked to your own happiness and inner peace. It shows the importance of having a positive impact, and doing something you find meaningful with your life and career -- I’d admit that this particularly spoke to me as I find myself at that time of my life… Decisions, decisions. Ultimately, the story behind the story of Our Brand is Crisis is the path Jane takes towards that ultimate goal; and that it’s never too late to make a radical change.

Even though this feels like the movie is very intellectual, it is actually pretty easy to watch. It offers impressive monologues from Bullock, good acting, some pretty fun lines, and is overall quite emotional. I really enjoyed it!

Grade: A-
0 Comments

Arzu Martinez on Room

10/24/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
Room is the newly released film based on the book of the same name, and it’s everything you could expect from it, and more. As with any screen adaptation, there are bits and pieces you might miss having read the book, but it works perfectly well on its own. It was adapted by the author herself, and it clearly shows. It is a must-watch, if you ask me.

The movie opens with Jack’s (Jacob Tremblay) voice. It is his fifth birthday, and we learn what a day looks like for him. As we become aware of pretty quickly, Jack lives with his Mom (Brie Larson) in Room— a cramped space with no windows, only a small skylight, and a locked metal door. Jack was born inside Room, and has never been outside of it. It has a bath, a small kitchen, a bed, a wardrobe and a tv.  Unbeknownst to him, his mother has been kept there for years, since a man--Old Nick (Sean Bridgers)—kidnapped her when she was only nineteen. In order to protect him from this terrible truth, Ma has raised Jack to believe that Room is the whole world—anything outside is outer space, and what they can see on tv is, well, “just tv”. The most fundamental things are completely different for him, and he can have a hard time even knowing what is real. Old Nick does not live in Room, but he comes in sometimes to bring things. So Jack doesn’t know if he’s real, or tv, or something in between; or whether he gets those things from outer space or tv.

What I believe to be the great accomplishment of Emma Donoghue’s book is this beautiful window into Jack’s mind: his interactions with his world, how he rationalizes the mythology created by his mother, and how deeply his circumstances affect his growth. At the same time, we see that Ma finds a sense of purpose in her son, and thanks to this manages to survive indescribable trauma. Donoghue’s character development, as an introspection of humanity, is inspired.

This powerful story of is further complemented by great visual storytelling; the vision of director Lenny Abrahamson (Frank) and cinematographer Danny Cohen (The King’s Speech, Les Misérables). And as for the acting, not only is Brie Larson compelling, but we also get an astounding performance from Jacob Tremblay, who had just turned 8 at the time of filming.
​

All together, this film offers more than one might expect: it is not a crime film, a thriller, or a tale of tragedy; but rather a story of human relationships, purpose, hope and happiness.

Grade: B+

0 Comments

Ben Garbow on Victoria

10/23/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
Victoria is German heist movie about a Spanish woman who teams up with a group of local Berliners to rob a bank. The movie shows the lead up, the heist, and the aftermath. Sounds like a good movie, right? Interesting, if a little clichéd, premise. Here’s the thing, though. Victoria has a trick up its sleeve, and it’s a hell of a trick.

The entire movie was shot in a single, more than two hours long, unbroken take. No edits, no CGI, no Birdman tricks. One unbroken shot lasting the entire film.

Due to that fact alone, Victoria is an amazing achievement. The amount of planning, coordination, and skill required to pull off something this ambitious is mind-boggling. (Victoria is only the sixth feature film to try such a feat, and is the longest one-shot film to date by almost 20 minutes. It supposedly took three attempts to film.) The camera weaves through streets, down alleyways, in and out of cars, in low light and bright pulsing clubs, peering over ledges at just the right moment to capture a key bit of action. It’s incredible to watch. It’s also a testament to the cast’s stellar acting that I briefly forgot that the unbroken take was still going.

Victoria herself acts as a conduit for the audience, an avatar character the camera always follows around, so we always see the action from her point of view. Limiting the camera’s view in some cases and sticking with a faux handheld filming style—not quite found footage, but jerky at parts—adds a great deal of immediacy to the events that unfold over the course of the film. It’s as if the audience is another player in the film, another character getting dragged along on the increasingly dangerous ride. A sense of urgency permeates through the whole film. Part of it is because of the story, and part of it is secretly hoping an actor won’t mess up and ruin the whole take.

Much like how Birdman used the single shot conceit to underscore the story of a live Broadway performance, Victoria uses an even more impressive parlor trick to emphasize its story. A heist film lends itself well to be shot in a continuous take. Just as a heist or a bank robbery needs to have a plan, meticulously and carefully thought out and executed, so too does the entire movie. If even one actor misses their mark, the whole thing is kaput. It adds an underlying feeling of tension to the whole movie, a feeling that at any moment something could go wrong. It’s really unbelievable—it has to be seen to be believed.

The few areas that suffer in service to the central editing trick are story and pacing. The story, like mentioned briefly earlier, is a fairly standard run of the mill heist story. I was never really surprised by anything that happened in Victoria, which isn’t the worst thing in the world, but is still a bit disappointing. There’s also some pacing acrobatics, mainly to justify the whole story taking place over two hours in real time. Action happens pretty rapidly, and some events that take place, namely the transitions and motivations for their occurrence, just aren’t realistic. Real people would never do these things this quickly.

But you know what? I didn’t really care. I didn’t care that I predicted almost everything that happened in Victoria, or that certain plot elements were sped way up to justify everything happening in real time. I was so mesmerized by the immediacy of it all, the fantastic camera work, the excellent acting. Victoria is a hell of a ride and an unbelievable achievement in filmmaking.

Grade: B


0 Comments

Anu Gulati on Crimson Peak

10/19/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
Crimson Peak is a treat for the senses. The trailers sell it as a horror film even though director Guillermo del Toro has persistently described it as a grand Hollywood production in the Gothic romance genre. Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth is a heartrending mixture of conflicting anxiety and childhood imagination, and it isn’t short to describe Crimson Peak as that, plus a tone-perfect Gothic atmosphere of a brooding fairy tale that is both creepy and eerie. The intricate set pieces and elaborate costume design feel like dreams out of del Toro’s wicked mind, and these elements tell the story of Crimson Peak while also revealing the inner psychology of it’s characters. The painterly beauty of the film doesn’t hurt it so much as I thought it would like in Tim Burton’s recent movies, as del Toro has such an intense awareness of tone that he carefully strolls the line of scary and silly to craft a generally fun experience.

Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) is a young, up-and-coming author haunted by her dead mother’s ghost; so of course she writes about them. She firmly declares to an editor reviewing her novel “It’s not a ghost story. It’s a story with a ghost in it,” and the line playfully rings true for Crimson Peak as well. Del Toro toys with the romance genre as Edith gets swept up by Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston), a British inventor visiting America to get funding for one of his inventions, and she is soon brought to his delightfully disturbing estate across the Atlantic. Del Toro plays with the horror genre with CGI ghosts that appear when Edith is alone and blood-red clay constantly oozing through the walls. Edith, Thomas, and Thomas’s indecipherable sister Lucille (Jessica Chastain) endure heightened melodrama, characteristic of Gothic romance, and the excessive emotion is reminiscent silent horror, with del Toro even using iris shots to match. What I most love about del Toro’s horror in Crimson Peak is how he reminded me what it’s like to garner both panic and nervous laughter from an audience. Crimson Peak is funny and sincere, with it’s climax line even reaping roars of laughter and an applause from the people around me. The Gothic romance genre marries things that are seemingly dissimilar, and that del Toro has married the ideas of horror, humor, and a love story all into one is exceptional.

Crimson Peak really amps up in amusement as Lucille grows more and more psychotic. She ends up becoming the movie’s main villain, and Chastain’s batshit insanity is amaaaazing. Chastain delivers speeches with excellent sociopathic pace and floats between rooms with such a frenzied aura that her supporting actress role deserves to be acknowledged. It’s been about 30 years since someone has made a Gothic romance on this scale, and del Toro masterfully reinvigorates the genre with his eye candy wardrobe and sets. There are some noticeable lazy directing kinks, like how he starts Edith off as a feminist author who wants to be the next Mary Shelley and then completely ditches these unique character traits. The horror elements of the movie push away all logical contradictions that appear throughout, and it alternates between being excusable and being outrageous. However, it is safe to say that del Toro has bounced back after 2013’s Pacific Rim. Crimson Peak isn’t a ghost story; it’s a gorgeous, classic tale of romance gone wrong, interspersed with laughs and lunacy and drenched in a memorable sanguine palette. And there are a couple ghosts in it, too.
​

Grade: B
0 Comments

Anu Gulati on Steve Jobs

10/16/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture


In the midst of the movie’s many heated arguments, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak piercingly asks “What do you do?”. Wozniak and
Steve Jobs question the titular man’s real role, the man who never coded or engineered his projects yet still rose to the top of Silicon Valley. He’s become an object of fascination and an icon of genius, and Steve Jobs attempts to scrape those headlines for the flawed yet fascinating man underneath.


Steve Jobs, like the man, is not standard. Aaron Sorkin’s script is set in three acts, each before a presentation for one of Jobs’s new products pre-iPod era and divided by newscasts of Apple’s condition at the time. There’s no real storytelling as Sorkin aims to capture the essence of Jobs (played by Michael Fassbender) through quick responses and jabs at the people who repeatedly show up to restrict his intellect and force him to “think different.” Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen), CEO John Sculley (Jeff Daniels), and key designer Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlbarg) appear every act as the star musicians of Jobs’s orchestra, tired and critical of his direction. Each conversation is mesmerizing, as Sculley or Wozniak try to scrutinize a man who so fully believes he is doing the right thing. Sorkin’s script is a powerful stallion that both celebrates and challenges Jobs’s iconoclast status.

The woman of Jobs’s life also do not try to make his life easier. Christine Brennan (Katherine Waterston) and daughter Lisa frequently appear as the toughest bump in Jobs’s road: accepting paternity and, later, fatherhood. Their interactions provide a behind-closed-doors, intimate view of Jobs’s personal life, the movie milking this as his greatest weakness. His right-hand-woman, Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet, whose stunning performance unexpectedly made me cry), relentlessly shakes him into reality and their interactions are like emotional sparring contests. There’s a gorgeous sequence where Jobs recalls to her the story of a NASA spaceship and Director Danny Boyle superimposes footage of the rocket blasting off next to their silhouettes. It’s a glimpse of Jobs’s dazzling imagination and convincing prowess as he reminds Hoffman that he’s been doing everything with the end goal of running Apple in mind this entire time.

After an energetic two acts, the third act limps along and ends with a fizz. The saccharine, glitzy ending awkwardly contrasts the sharp, savage rest of the movie, and it really feels like Boyle wailed to have this ending be his moment. Despite expecting Boyle’s direction getting in the way of Sorkin’s vigorous script and Fassbender’s impeccable performance, I was admittedly excited for Steve Jobs. There were enough movies about Jobs before this one, yet I still gaped at the rehashed, edgy trailers and minimalist posters that featured the same mythology of a man. This is the best Steve Jobs movie because it attempts to dissect his “genius” while knowing what an impossible task that is. We learn that Steve Jobs is no God, and yet his mythology prevails even posthumously. What does that say for a film that casts a much more attractive Hollywood actor to portray a tech company CEO who's greatest contributions were minimalist design and unconventional thinking in the broad sense? That the ugly bits are worth absolving.

Grade: B

0 Comments

Elizabeth Johnson-Wilson on Time Out of Mind

10/14/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
Oren Moverman’s Time Out of Mind is about George (Richard Gere), a homeless man floating about New York City. We entered his life at either a summit or valley in his life, depending on how you look at it, as he grapples with his homelessness and attempts to free himself from his current sad situation.

This movie is a real master class in storytelling through cinematography. While watching, the first things I really noticed were the shot types and camera positioning. Moverman and cinematographer Bobby Bukowski shot most of the film through hidden cameras, typically shooting from behind doors and through windows; therefore, most shots keep the viewer very distanced from George and the other characters, mimicking the literal distance and invisibility of most of society’s “interaction” with homeless people on a daily basis. This caused for there to be a very noticeable shift when they shot close-ups that brought us closer to George, usually in moments of vulnerability.  Each shot was static, either gradually pushing in or pulling out, giving a resounding sense of the overbearing time in which George is suspended, as he has nowhere to be and nothing to do, and must find ways to spend his days as he is constantly bombarded with his reality.

The sound design was also ridden with expertise. There was a lot of focus on diegetic sound; the static shots of the stillness of George in the city were contrasted with the sonic chaos of the city surroundings. And when the sound (rarely) ever became nondiegetic, it was very noticeable, almost strangely so.

I find George to be very interesting. I can't quite figure him out; it's hard to see his motivation. Which is not necessarily a bad thing- it's good to have deep, interesting protagonists. But he's a particularly murky protagonist. You know how when you watch movies, you know kind of what the character is or what that character does? You usually know the type of person or character you're watching? Well, you can't tell with this protagonist. Gere gives probably his most nuanced, gravitas-laden performance yet. The viewer very gradually receives information about our protagonist: an estranged and fed-up daughter, a dark and mistake-laden past. We’re distanced from him, physically, mentally, and emotionally. It's seems hard to connect at all; George is a frustrating character, rarely having much energy, often not being able to find the right words, sometimes making confusing decisions. But somehow, we’re pulled in. Moreover, we connect because we pity him, although as the movie goes on, it can somewhat difficult to keep that pity. But actually, the movie doesn't hit you over the head with pity and sorrow and preaching and doesn't call you to empathize with the character as much as it does make you think about his decisions and the reality of the situation that he's in. It makes for an interesting and unique movie-watching experience. It's easy to see how this choice in characterization highlights homelessness and how it works in our culture: one is distanced from these people in every way. We don't stop to see them. But as for the distance on the character and story level, I can't quite understand. I can't figure this guy out. I'm not sure we’re supposed to.

Time Out of Mind has no gimmicks, no typical, overused cinematic draws. Just subtle artistry and consciousness. On the surface, the movie is about the way that we treat the homeless in our society. About how they’re trapped in this system, and how it's hard for them to get out, even though we all convince ourselves that we want them to. But below that surface, there's a deeper meaning: a meditation on the economics of the second chance and forgiveness and how that works in our lives. It's about how, even though we disappoint so many people again and again, and how we disappoint ourselves countless times, the heart can still love and still forgive, if we allow ourselves to get there. About how you have to come to terms with the lows of your past and finally accept them, before you can do the work to get to the highs of your future.

Rating: A+
0 Comments

Comments from Davis Guggenheim, director of He Named Me Malala

10/9/2015

0 Comments

 
After the film, director Davis Guggenheim along with Dr. Ali Asani and Dr. Jocelyne Cesari of Harvard University participated in a talk-back hosted by Globe Docs and the Harvard Pluralism Project at Kendall Square Theatre. The interview was conducted by Boston Globe staff member Janice Page, and below are some of the highlights from this talk.

Question: “This is a common subject. What did you think you could contribute to it?”

Guggenheim: “They [the studio] wanted actors at first, but I met her and realized no one can really play her. They asked me to do the film and I said I needed a few days to think about it, and then I agreed…I really connected to the father-daughter story—I have daughters of my own, and I don’t quite understand them [laughs]…I’m interested in the invisible forces, even in the United States, pulling at girls going to school. I want Malala to be remembered as more than a girl who was shot by Taliban.”

Question: “Did you originally have a different direction for the documentary?”

Guggenheim: “I found Malala has such forgiveness and lack of bitterness through faith, and then the project took on a life of its own.”

Question: “What is it about the idea of the educated girl that seems so frightening?”

Asani: “Because she is able to assert critically and make observations. This is a matter of how to educate human beings. There is a Western misperception that most common in the Arab world is Islam as an actor, as a thing, but it’s really just a concept that people use as reason. Unfortunately, the Taliban uses it for violence. Also, there is the misperception that is Islam is all the same: It is not.”

Guggenheim: “Violent actors are a small part of the Muslim world and our understanding must be deeper than we think. We can blame thins news, such as 60 Seconds, but what are we doing? We consume a negative diet of information.”

Question: “In the making of the movie, did you struggle with how to show gore? Or how to avoid being exploitative?”

Guggenheim: “The shooting is a moment, but I didn’t want it to be the moment. Before filming anything, I sat, just me and Malala, in her office. I had no agenda, no premise, no camera crews. I didn’t want to be exploitative, I wanted to show her as a girl. The animations came from this. I also wanted to show what a 14-year-old girl would imagine while she’s laying in bed at night, wondering at how she got her name. I wanted to invite people into this narrative, because pure violence is scary.”

Dr. Cesari: “The goal is to humanize narrative, not just to think of Islam through political terms. Politics has a way of dehumanizing, while art humanizes issues. The aesthetics of those forms transforms narratives and connects people on the level of the human experience. Particular contexts, in art, can be universalized because of an element…Here, silent is finding a voice.”
0 Comments

Gabrielle Ulubay on He Named Me Malala

10/9/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
I had high expectations for this Davis Guggenheim documentary about Malala Yousafzai, the young girl who was attacked by the Taliban for advocating on behalf of women’s education in Pakistan. You might recognize Guggenheim’s name from his other popular liberal documentaries, including An Inconvenient Truth (2006) and Waiting for Superman (2010). He’s a well-known director with such a good reputation that he was personally asked to do this film, but his work here was disappointing.

The documentary was a disorganized series of seemingly unrelated scenes. It jumped between random events spanning from the time before the attack to Malala’s current life in England. At one time, her parents’ relationship history was also discussed, as was Malala’s social life. All of this information is interesting and could still have been included, but it looked like it was put together at random. I understand the need to change the mood of the documentary so that it does not feel like a depressing melodrama with a forced happy ending, and do not claim that the film needed to be done chronologically. But the way that Guggenheim jumped around was frustrating.

The issue in the film is neither Malala nor her family. On the contrary, the Yousafzai family was eloquent, poised, intelligent, and genuine. They were serious on the obviously more solemn issues in this film, yet affectionate and good-humored enough for the movie to be fun to watch. Each person was also fascinating in his or her own right.

Also, the illustrations used to tell the story of Malala’s namesake and to relay more violent parts of the subject were masterful. They kept the piece from being too bloody, which would have desensitized and turned off the audience altogether. Other than the Yousafzai family, these illustrations were the best part of the film.

The footage collected was quite good, and could have been better appreciated in a different order. While the documentary was still enjoyable, on a technical level this subject deserved more than what the project ultimately became.

Rating: B-
0 Comments

Kunal Asarsa on Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead

10/9/2015

0 Comments

 
Aahh ... National Lampoon. Humorous. Rambunctious. Heroes. Maniacs. There are maybe 100 words to define it. But if you wanna go beyond those few words that describe them and into the story of one of the most successful humour magazine and it's cultural impact, you've got to see Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead.
Picture
​DSBD documents the rise, reign and fall of a social revolution called National Lampoon. So what is this National Lampoon? The right question is not what, but who. Born in the 70’s (unlike most of our readers) National Lampoon is the brainchild of Doug Kenney and Henry Beard, both Harvard students. Brought together by their love of humour, these two students came up with a magazine (limited distribution) named Harvard Lampoon. Jokes, sex, social events, nudity -- the lampoon had it all to fuel its flight. It spread wide, famous amongst students and slowly to outsiders. In no time it was a national magazine. By then the team had grown quite larger than just two Harvard geniuses. Slowly they started a radio show, standup acts and eventually movies (pretty much the only surviving presence of the legacy).

What makes DSBD interesting is the way it allows the younger generation to relive an era that gave birth to several mediums/genres of comedy as we know them today as well as provide a chance to reminiscent for those who experienced the movement in person. It consists of appearances by actors (Kevin Bacon, Chevy Chase), writers, illustrators, comics, and all who helped shape National Lampoon. With unseen footage, notes and interviews this documentary creates a complete experience that every National Lampoon fan would cherish. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that Douglas Triola (writer, director) has done his homework.

So if you are a fan of National Lampoon or just want to experience their journey, Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead is one documentary you don't wanna miss. Oh and as a fair warning, this movie is not for kids and please watch it without the company of anyone who's related to you, to avoid being embarrassed. Moments of gratuitous graphic nudity guaranteed. 

Grade: B
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Categories

    All
    AJ Martin
    Andy Robinson
    Anime
    Anthony Formicola
    Anu Gulati
    Arjun Agarwal
    Arzu Martinez
    Ben Garbow
    Brandon Isaacson
    Brian Hamilton
    Carter Sigl
    Dan Simeone
    Discussion
    Elizabeth Johnson Wilson
    Eliza Rosenberry
    Emily Fisler
    Erick Sanchez
    Eric Tatar
    Essays
    Festivals
    Gabrielle Ulubay
    Haley Emerson
    Here's Some Movies
    Ian Wolff
    IFF Boston
    IFFBoston 2015
    Interviews
    Isaac Feldberg
    Kunal Asarsa
    Library
    Lists
    Marguerite Darcy
    Marissa Marchese
    Mary Tobin
    Meghan Murphy
    Mike Muse
    Mitch Macro
    Neel Shah
    Netflix Instant Watch
    Parth Parekh
    Patrick Roos
    Profiles
    Reviews
    Short Films
    Television
    This Week In Movies
    Tyler Rosini

    Want to Write for Us?

    Contact NUFEC President Ian Wolff at nufecblog@gmail.com if you're interested in writing for this blog!

    Archives

    April 2022
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2019
    September 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.