Does the title have a typo?

"Stereotyping" would be a much better fit.

Just saw this movie today, and I'm having a very difficult time associating anyone's positive reactions with what I saw. In fact, I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out how to sum up the 10,000 worlds rumbling through my brain about how banal this tripe is. But I'll do my best.

So "Fiction" was supposed to be about superiority. Er, no. The only superiority I read from it was Solondz's own conceit. Does he really think smacking "don't be a racist" in my face will make me realize any more he was trying to get across a message about racism? Even that failed miserably; it was more about perversion than racism.

There was zero emotion whatsoever in any of the characters. What I could gather were the characters:

1. A Pulitzer prize-winning author with his head so far up his ass he couldn't even articulate his trivial belittlement of his own students. His and Catherine's monologues were a perfect description of themselves: flat and boring.
2. Everyone else (including the professor and Catherine): cardboard cutouts of one another. It's so clear this was written by one person. Everyone has the same tedious, &#@*-for-brains attitude. And with the monotone characteristics of part one...you sludge into part two with carbon copies of part one.

The characters of "Non Fiction":

1. Redundant. Emotionless. Bland. Did I mention redundant?

Basically, it's 90 minutes of boilerplate teleprompter reading. I can't help but wonder if Solondz plucked a bunch of drama club actors and told them to give as least convincing performances as possible. I feel insulted.