Chloe Swann

Everything about this film is wrong, from the annoying and intrusive musical score, to the clumsy and unrealistic dialogue, to the implausible behavior of professors and graduate students, especially those in the department of philosophy. The attempt to depict the casual dialogue at the party has academics engaging in the type of inane and boring conversation that philosophy professors and grad students wouldn't be caught dead talking about. The behavior of the philosophy professor's husband, who is also an academic and psychologist, is ludacris, even if there was conflict in the marriage. And academics in higher education at Ivy League universities have far greater vocabularies, especially in the department of philosophy, than to repeatedly use the same banal curse word as working class Teamsters. Overall, the film gets the higher echelons of Academia completely wrong, which could be due to the possibility that none of the participants in the development and making of the film come from an academic environment, certainly not one involved in the complex field of philosophy. In addition to these missteps, the editing is abominable, the actors are not believable in their roles, and the whole project seems to be misguided in just about every way a film can go wrong. Don't waste your money or your time on this misfire; there are plenty of good films about similar subject matter in a similar academic environment, and as soon as I think of some, I'll let you know.

Beautiful film, misunderstood by those who gave it bad reviews. It's not an action movie or a crime drama or horror film or thriller, So if that's what you want, this isn't your cup of tea. This is a sensitive film about people facing an uncertain future and reckoning with past choices, as their long-running Las Vegas show comes to an end.

The big C has a lot of good things, but is also flawed. The writing was so bad in general that it was almost unwatchable. I strongly disliked every single character; apparently they were supposed to come off as quirky, real, flawed, but ultimately good. They were all redeemed in season 4, but their behavior during the latter half of season 1 as well as seasons 2 and 3 was not believable nor sympathetic. In general, too much drama was packed into every single episode and thus the writing devolved from realistic to melodramatic in order to pack it all in. For the main character, being ill was used as an excuse to be selfish, cruel, rude, insensitive, and so completely self-absorbed as to lack empathy for anybody else. It felt like the audience was supposed to applaud the main character's 'courage' and 'bravery' for not caring what others think but she came across as so unlikable until season 4 that it was hard to feel any sympathy or human connection. And the dialogue overall was simply not believable, and seemed to be intended to create problems and overwrought drama drama drama rather than be a realistic portrayal. The good things about the series were the actors who were first-rate all-around despite having to voice insipid dialogue much of the time, and having to constantly portray extreme highs and lows that came to be tiresome. Another big plus for the series is simply having it be about cancer and how it affects everyone, even if the behavior of the characters didn't track much of the time. Another plus were the guest stars who are outstanding. And there were several bright spots in seasons 1, 2 and 3 despite the flaws. However, the swearing, the disrespect, the sex and nudity often felt disingenuous, having been included for shock value to entice viewers who might otherwise have balked at watching a show about cancer. I would give it 2 and 1/2 Stars, which is a reflection only of the writing and the densely melodramatic plots of each episode rather than a reflection of the superb acting.