There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Even as a fan of indie films and movies that are driven by character over plot, I found Tiny Furniture to be appallingly bad. The characters are all not only stereotypes but despicable people. The dialogue is as bad as the dialogue in The Phantom Menace. Absolutely nothing is learned by the characters, and if anything could be learned by the audience, it would be a brief, boring insight into the lives of very, very dull people.Aura, the protagonist is an entitled, self-pitying post-grad student who flounders awkwardly through bad choices and bratty behavior and passes it off as self discovery. Aura's mother fits every cliché of the rich, distant, oblivious parent who simultaneously fosters and disapproves of her daughter's bad habits. The men at whom Aura throws herself are the worst part of the film. These men are supposed to be presented to us as unique and deep--one is broke and a freeloader, but he makes YouTube videos in which he quotes Nietzsche while riding a rocking horse. The other is a cook who cheats on his girlfriend and only shows interest in Aura after she indicates she can get him pills, but--he reads novels and wears a fedora. These men take advantage of her in the most blatant ways possible, apparently without her noticing.However, it's hard to feel sympathy for Aura when people take advantage of her because she also takes advantage of others. She takes her mother's money, food, and wine without a thought and lies when confronted about it. She reads her mother's diary without permission and lets a man she just met live in her mother's bedroom while she's gone. Aura has one friend in the film who seems to truly care about her. And while Aura appears ready to do anything for her new friends who treat her like trash, she ignores, snubs, and drives away the one good friend.The plot plods through the mundane activities of Aura's days. The more mundane the activity, the harder she fails in completing it. She is constantly late for her job as a day hostess. She can't rouse herself to put on pants for half the film. She is often shot lying on the floor, even while carrying on conversations, babysitting, and showering. All in all, the film is about a lazy, self-indulgent child in the body of an adult who, for whatever reason, is unable to handle any measure of responsibility. Pretension and privilege drive the film, which seems meant to cater to the hipster/indie film crowd on the surface level, without the depth of many other films in the same genre. A depressing, cliché movie at best and an abomination at worst.

The characters in Lena Dunham's Tiny Furniture are the kind that mistake the phrase "eight grade crying" for "integrated grinding," used in the context of describing a local dance. They are the kind of people who seem to have quite a bit to be thankful for - very nice homes/apartments, possessions that make people envious, lovely outfits, and more - but scarcely seem to recognize that and just go ahead and direct their attention to the first problem on their mind; one in particular is quoted that another spends a day "watching Rachel Maddow, eating coconut-macaroons and laying on a heating pad." They are also the kind of people who hit their friend with a wooden spoon in what seems to be a playful manner when they are legitimately angry at that same person. These are likely some of the most eclectic people ever committed to film.But Dunham commits them and drags them along in a tired and often boring array of archetypal, indie-situational comedy that never seems to be interesting enough to become invested in or relatable or believable enough to take seriously on a personal level. I almost feel that the people who look up to this film now - post-college kids and twentysomethings trying to latch on to a specific direction in life - will look back on this film in maybe twenty years and smirk and perhaps hide their face at the characters' naivete and almost disturbingly ungrateful attitude.The film is centered around Aura (Lena Dunham), who returns home from her liberal arts college to her mother's loft, which serves as her studio for her art. Aura majored in film studies and has no particular direction in life, and is caught in the middle of two men while trying to find motivation to even get up in the morning. The two men are pretty basic caricatures, much like herself - Jed (Alex Karpovsky), who has achieved moderate internet fame thanks to his Youtube videos and Keith (David Call), who works at the same restaurant Aura does.Right off the bat, these characters seem to be nothing more than vessels spewing cute phrases that are a cross between directionless collegiate talk and a product of screen writing quirkiness. Despite Dunham approaching this topic with the mindset to capture this point in people's lives with a sense of authenticity. But just like that, everybody here feels inauthentic and quirky to the point of being barely able to function. Everything, from their moments to their speech to their speech-patterns, seems to be meticulously laid out and almost robotic, so as nothing is natural and almost exists as this artificial dream world.Consider the scene where Aura and Jed have sex in a thin, tight metal pipe in the middle of the street in what is one of the most awkward and damning scenes I've seen in a while. There's no particular wit or humor in a scene like this. It's only awkward and serves as yet another moment when Dunham seems to be concocting a long line of eccentric events in the film for the sole purpose of having eccentric events take place.Then there are scenes like the one where Aura throws an all out temper-tantrum at her mother in a scene that is nothing but whiny in tone and only adds to the unlikability of its characters. This scene, however, is still a bold act on Dunham's behalf because she's unafraid to show her characters in two separate lights, or even make a stern note of the distasteful acts she commits. Yet by the time we start seeing this unlikable side to the characters, Tiny Furniture hasn't given us much to really like or appreciate about the characters, so by the time these aspects are introduced there's nothing for us to remind ourselves that these characters are somewhat decent people.I suppose by definition of technicalities, Tiny Furniture is considered a mumblecore film, for it has a heavy focus/attachment to its characters, makes an attempt at naturalistic dialog (by Dunham's definition not mine), and rather low-budget production values that use color as a way of disguising their cheapness. Dunham and another mumblecore filmmaker I have a great fondness for, Joe Swanberg, seem to do a lot of similar things from infusing their films with the likes of uniquely characters to focusing sights on their sexual adventures; the difficulty is stating why one does it better than the other. Maybe it's because Swanberg's approach seems to be catering to a wider demographic where you don't need to be a part of the characters' specific group in order to like or understand them. In Tiny Furniture, it seems the only way to have any kind of positive feeling towards these characters is if you have similar circumstances to them and, with the way Dunham has drawn these vapid and often contemptible people, I doubt a great many people have.Certain parts of Tiny Furniture work - the framing is top-notch and tightly-formatted, giving the sense we know exactly what Dunham wants to include and exclude in the shot and, on occasion, Dunham stages some strong monologues. Regardless of how I feel about Tiny Furniture, there's little denying that Lena Dunham will be a central figure to monitor with the popularity of indie film along with her HBO show Girls. Like it or not, Dunham has now been billed as "a voice of her generation" so much now that she (a) knows it and (b) will continue to produce films that stay true to her specific style. How you'll feel about this statement will differ. I just believe I'm stating a fact.Starring: Lena Dunham, Alex Karpovsky, and David Call. Directed by: Lena Dunham.

This is the worst movie I've ever seen, and I typically enjoy movies of this nature (slower, deliberate about emotional development). I'll break it down:Dialogue - This bothered me most and was the most distracting. It was completely stilted and lacked any flow.Characters - Totally unsympathetic people. Generally underdeveloped.Plot - Post college malaise is ripe with potential for a story, yet it feels as if it is only used as a plot device to introduce the pathetic characters and their terrible dialogue.Nothing in the movie is particular funny, but it is a bit pretentious, making this movie completely unwatchable. On a side note, I have never seen Girls, but after this drivel, I hope I never do.

I wanted to watch this movie to see what the big deal with Lena Dunham is. I don't think I found it here or a reason to watch Girls, which I assume is the same plot as this film is. Dunham's technique is good. I liked to way she set up static shots. I know people complain about static shots, but I find them refreshing after seeing shows like American Horror Story go crazy with the hand held off and on focus shots. She did a lot with a little money. Not sure why she didn't admit her parents paid for the film. That is funny to me. "Mommy I want to make a film, can I have 50k?" "Yes, dear, let me get my checkbook and you can also use my swanky pad and we can act in it too!"The one thing that bothered me was the constant reference to Aura being a genius. I guess Dunham subconsciously made her path. It is almost like she was pushed into a débutante ball and upon her discovery, Judd Apatow grabbed her on his arm. I wouldn't be surprised if all these people knew each other. It's sort of a roll your eyes moment, since I know a lot of people who have talent that will never get half the salary and attention Dunham gets. It's not only her, but a lot of people who make films.Overall, this movie reminded me a lot of Beeswax. It has that mumblecore flavor, despite Dunham saying it had a script. It comes off like it didn't have one. I was introduced to characters that I thought would end up doing something, but none of them did. It didn't have much of a plot and ended flat like Beewax did. It's OK. I don't hate it but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it or Girls, which I think is the same thing. I think the pipe sex scene was done in a different yet same way for Girls.I do have to say, Lena Dunham can whine. Her spoiled brat antics in this film are real and I think that is because she is playing herself. When she got into a whiny fight with her mom, that was the best "acting" in this film. It was also a late entry into SXSW and won. Is that fishy or what? I feel sort of bad for those folks without rich parents who turned their entries in on time.