not as good as all the hype

brilliant actors, brilliant editing

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

This is a must see for movie buffs, a probably for Williams fans, a maybe for liberals and it seems likely to be loathsome to the far right. It's ... bizarre? Garp has some great stars AND the funny might leave you breathless at times but it shouldn't leave you tongue-less.It's ... uh ... an interesting movie. I can't recommend it simply because I doubt most people would enjoy it today. I can watch it every 10 years or so.

Many others have commented on the John Irving novel that this film is supposed to be based upon. I haven't read the book, but how true this movie is to the source doesn't matter in critiquing the film itself. "The World According to Garp" is a hodgepodge of events in the life of the main character, Garp, played by Robin Williams. Others saw some good performances in the film, but it's hard to pin down characters with this script, the directing and film editing. The film bounces all over the place with little cohesion. An example is in Garp's character who gets emotional over his mom's death (Jenny Fields played by Glenn Close). But earlier, when his youngest son Walter is killed in a car accident in which everyone else is hurt, the film skips right over it. There's one reference to Walter's being gone between Garp and his wife, Helen, played by Mary Beth Hurt. But no signs of emotion from either one. That's where there should have been a real outpouring of grief by both parents. Anyone who knows anything about life realizes that children are not supposed to die before their parents. So, it's hard for this viewer to believe the sincerity of emotion Williams shows at times. The notion of the actor trying to portray a feeling seems to hang over those scenes. Others noted that Close's character seems aloof much of the time. She often seems to have something else on her mind. She's matter-of-fact in everything she does. So, there's no warmth or life to her character. John Lithgow as the trans-gender Roberta probably gives the best performance, but it's not exceptional. The rest of the characters are fair in their roles. At one point in the film, the Clue board game came to mind. There were so many different mishaps and tragedies happening, it seemed like a catalog for a board game. It has rape (female of a male no less), murder, sex, car death, attempted suicide, male and female nudity, shootings, adultery, sex change, self-mutilation, prostitution, solicitation (by a mother for her son yet), an airplane crash, road rage, and several near accidents. All this in a film that is supposed to be first, a comedy. I'm surprised that there wasn't an abortion, to go along with the rest of the "humor." Others have noted the incoherence of this film. I suspect that the number of things that qualify this as an R-rated film would turn many viewers away. I can laugh at good film efforts to poke fun at serious subjects. But this isn't a good effort, and it can't be considered a spoof with all its aberrations. For instance, two shooting instances to kill people are hardly good fodder for laughs. And, what do they spoof? The best that can be said about "The World According to Garp" is that it has some nice camera shots of New England coastal scenes.

Question #1 - Back in 1944 (the year in which this film's story begins) was it standard procedure for a nurse, like Jenny Fields, to mount a dying soldier (who just happened to be sporting an erection) and, thus, get herself pregnant? Was this act of low professional ethics an accepted policy in the nurse's handbook? Question #2 - Am I the only one who thinks it's really screwy that after a woman has done such a thing (as mentioned above) that she then go around boasting about it, even to her parents, as well as talking about it in the presence of the son who was conceived this way? Question #3 - And would you deem it deranged and hypocritical for this very same woman to be calling adolescent boys "sick" for looking at girlie magazines (?) - As well as disapproving of her own son's interest in women? Question #4 - Is it alright for this very same woman to write a book clearly encouraging other women to literally defecate on men as a means of gaining female empowerment and that way reduce men to the lowest position of being the absolute scum of the earth? Question #5 - Am I mistaken, or did this movie send me a clear message, telling me that no man is any good unless he becomes a transsexual (?) - As well as telling me that it's only women who've got the capacity to truly love their children? Question #6 - Was this distasteful, gender-biased, ass-backwards comedy really based on a novel written, not by a woman, but, by a man? You know, after watching this film with its decidedly gender-confused storyline, I honestly find myself unable to determine whether novelist, John Irving was, himself, a true man-hater at heart, or just a nasty, little woman-hater. I'd say that he was, very much, a lot of both.But regardless of how I interpret "Garp's" story, I think this film was a really demented tale that made "Feminism" appear to be absolutely despicable. It was very poorly conceived as far as a so-called big-budget "Comedy" goes.

Garp and I go waaay back. We have a history, part of which I will omit here for some honor, but most I'll explain.Picture it: Summer of 1982, Arizona. I was 8 years old and my parents took me to see The World According to Garp with the rational that it's Robin Williams (he was Popeye for my sake) so it has to be funny, despite the dreaded R-Rating my parents were opposed to. Not only were they shocked at the nudity, sexual situations and language, they found the movie boring and not-so-funny.What was funny, was that when they showed a woman's breasts, they covered my eyes yet leaving them wide open for the guy's locker room that, pretty much, showed everything. Heh, little did they know.Probably not so strange, those were the main two scenes/memories I can recall from when I was eight and seeing this the first time. Obviously, the rest of the movie didn't leave too much of an impact, despite seeing myself in the role of Young Garp (James McCall) since we were relatively the same age. I guess I was either bored or concentrated too far on what I saw openly or through my parent's hand.Beyond the "Rated-R Content" had they known what a deep, long and melodramatic film this was, I'm sure I would've been sent off to see either The Secret of Nimh or Tron. Heck, I would've loved to see Raiders of the Lost Ark's reissue as I don't recall seeing that in the theatres. My guess, they would've vetoed The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas.Anyhoo…fast forward. Present Day, also Arizona. I just watched it again, only for the second time, upon a friend's recommendation. My reaction?Well, the locker room scene wasn't what I remembered it as… Just kidding. Overall, I believe the movie's title is wrong. Sure, the movie's main character is, in fact, Garp (Robin Williams,) but I got the feeling: this is really Nurse Jenny's (Glenn Close) movie. And Close did a FANTASTIC job as the strict, but free-spirited, WOMAN-FIRST single mother, something simply unheard of in the 1940s and on through Garp, her only child's life.Sure, Jenny was a tad bit controlling and had wild ideas about how sex was bad, lust worse and men suck, but Close showed such incredible depth that I would loved to get to know her in real life. That is, if her men-hating groupies (today they would be militant-lesbians, and perhaps some of these were) would let me near her.The character Garp does feel throughout that he's taking a backseat to his mother, and after watching the movie, I'd have to agree. If only he'd saw the whole picture, or at least opened his eyes and stop trying to one-up her, there might have been an alternative ending.Basically, the movie follows baby Garp from birth (and in the air) through fatherhood in various stopping points of his life. His likes: wrestling and writing, his lusts: a childhood crush, a younger babysitter and a prostitute and his love: Helen. All throughout, his mother stays close as both his mother and friend.That's the basic, BASIC, premise of the story, but you will need to watch it for the more depth given, the sly jokes the toned down Williams utters, and the friendships made such as the wonderful Roberta Muldoon played by John Lithgow.(I generally hate this phrase, but…) I don't care who you are, you'll fall in love with Roberta, probably the only completely loyal and sane character in the entire movie. And yet will probably be judged the harshest – especially in 1982 – for being a transvestite ex-football player.And speaking of which, that's one of the best qualities of this movie. Even though it was set from the 1940s to decades later, it still came out in 1982 and broached some touchy and tough subjects, both of which I thoroughly admire the filmmakers, writers, director, etc, for taking. This includes, but not inclusive of: woman's movements & rights, single mother parenting, transvestites – including acceptance and fights on both sides – SEE: Garp's final book. (I left out one in particular as that would be too much of a spoiler.)This is not all to say this was a perfect movie. Though it did pull some emotions out of me, and certainly made me laugh in spots – namely from Williams very low humor, it had enormous pacing problems injunction with being just too long and it was thoroughly over-dramatic in spots to the point where almost each and every scene as the movie progressed, I felt something REALLY bad was going to happen. That got annoying after awhile due to it taking away some of the pleasures of watching and enjoying what was on the screen. In addition to that, some of the most traumatic scenes were cutaways, freeze-frames or preceded a long jump into the future where we were never really sure exactly what just happened or who died (or not) until someone verbally mentioned it. It was as if the filmmakers were brave enough to release some hot topics, but pulled back in fear on others.I'm not sure how soon I'll be seeing this again – it's been nearly 30 years in between the first and second viewings, at any rate – because now I know how long it is, or feels. For, I don't have a problem with a 2 hour 16 minute movie; I just don't jump to the ones that feel twice that length.If you have not yet experienced Jenny's World, er, Garp's, then I thoroughly encourage you to absorb the wonderful performances, lines, humor, sadness, growth and hope. Just know it's not a quick flick, but it's certainly one to be seen.