User Reviews

I think a film like Mutual Appreciation and films in general akin to Mutual Appreciation will more often than not get a bit of a sigh from its audience following the first five minutes, possibly followed by a rolling of the eyes. But while certain experiments can go wrong when it comes to film, I don't think Mutual Appreciation is a film to be sniffed at. Its really low budget and the fact it goes a for a pretty long runtime considering what conditions these people are making it under add to the overall experience of watching a film as guerrilla style and as unordinary as this one but the most surprising thing I found was just how interested I really was as these scenes and this runtime were totalling up.

Mutual Appreciation is a film about students, made by students. It carries all those tags you'd associated with the young, the up-coming and the adventurous in the sense there are lots of long takes; there's dialogue that doesn't revolve around anything and the makers are using people they probably picked off the street for locations that are their own homes – the film even gives us a few well shot scenes on actual streets but not in the cornered off, Hollywood sense where lots of extras make up the background and a police presence stops anything going wrong, oh no: this is neo-realism, out on the roads, with self-motivated written permission for filming and everything else that comes with it.

I guess we've all attempted to make a film at one point in our lives. For some, it becomes careers; for others it is limited to a brief recording of a friend or loved one on a holiday via a camera phone or a recording of an event such as a wedding or birthday party, the ultimate 'home movie'. But Mutual Appreciation is a 'home movie' of sorts that relies on people in a fictional yet realistic situation attempting to, at the film's core, find who they are and where they belong with what they belong doing following up as a sort of sub-theme. Conversations can take place in houses or flats; on city streets or in cars and can revolve around anything in particular like the size of a mole on someone's body to the meaningless chit-chat that occurs between a band member and the host before a live musical performance.

But the truly scary thing about the dialogue is just how good it is or just how interesting it is when it's trying to be smart and carry substance. The host of the musical performance owns a cinematic space that is vastly the superior of all the other locations, especially ones that dictate where certain characters live. In his kitchen, primary characters Alan (Rice) and Sera (Lee) will have an uneasy conversation that will have you flinch somewhat to do with their relationship – it does not help matters that the preceding scenes had her in a flirtatious mindset with the host of both the apartment.

But as I say, the film's focus is on these people and where they fit into society. Alan seems to be chasing a musical fondness of some sort but must negotiate girls in the process as well as his father's constant wish for him to earn money to help for more immediate issues. The film gives us splashes of other people. Lawrence, played by Andrew Bujalski the film's writer/director gives advice in his own little room to a girl who is requesting help for male read monologues, something that has no bearing on the overall film but does pop up later on reminding us of this earlier exchange. The point here being that whilst not necessarily demanding an 'art' label, the film proves it is able to deliver a nicely written scene in which one character will help another through good dialogue – good dialogue being pretty much the only thing films like this have initially: they don't have much money for special effect or acting talent and cannot give us lush locations and fancy visual aids but anybody can write a page of dialogue on anything. Mutual Appreciation takes advantage of this one factor.

Going on from the scenes that do work through attention to substance, Alan's immediate life is focused upon following the leaving of the host's flat following the musical performance. He visits a girl with whom he is friends and nothing more. He has left the previous apartment with his female 'partner' still there after going through a minor break-up with someone who came onto him and witnessing her flirtatious activity. In the new location, he is relegated once more and his manhood jeopardised when the female host and her female friends convince him to dress up in female clothing this relegating him further into a sort of metaphorical mire of embarrassment and failure to control a situation when activity involving multiple genders threaten to escalate out of Alan's control – he has failed again.

But Alan's voyage around a night time urban location does not go on for too long and the theory reading has to stop after this scene; this is not Mike Leigh's 1993 film Naked after all. But what it is is an interesting and somewhat unique look at life in America round about now as a young adult or late teen. When issues of sex and relationships arise they are not dealt with in a childish 'American Pie' manner but are constructed and developed - not a film for all but I got a mild kick out of it.

Painful awkwardness…it's a real problem. Bujalski masterfully uncovers a new generation of college graduates that probably seems all too familiar to some. The film captures moments of social anxiety that come from a generation of sheltered upper middle class graduates. The security of a sheltered life comes with a price: these people have no idea how to express emotions and talk about anything beyond mundane daily happenings unless, as Ellie says, they are fed multiple beers. When Ellie and Alan admit a mutual attraction for each other on the bed, they have absolutely no idea how to realize it. All Alan can do is hilariously and timidly rub Ellie's arm. Instead, Ellie simply goes back to a boyfriend that doesn't even experience a mood shift when Ellie tells him he is attracted to his best friend, and they had a very vague "moment". Are we finally seeing the consequences of not letting youth experience anything for themselves? Are these people victims of their upbringing or is it their own fault, or both? I sat there watching the film feeling entirely uncomfortable, which is why the film worked so well. The silence in the air often made me cringe, which created completely hilarious moments when the characters finally responded with confused, inarticulate comments: "I can't even do that thing where you're not my girlfriend and I'm making out with you". I was scared to watch the movie, because I was afraid it would remind me of my own post college life. Some moments did hit close to home for me, and I found myself reflecting on my own life as well as the characters in the film. This film is scary and funny at the same time. It reminds us to wake up, but to also realize that life is full of awkward moments and sometimes all there is to do is laugh at them. I saw this film at Chicago's Music Box, and suggest that everyone do the same before the film is gone from the theater.

I haven't seen this director's first film, the 2002 Funny Ha Ha, but I'm already a fan, if a mild one, from this second effort. It's enjoyable to watch the quiet textures of ordinary young adult American life that Andrew Bujalski weaves, because his people talk in ways that are both witty and remarkably believable, even if the rhythms are mostly lackadaisical.

"If John Cassavetes had directed a script by Eric Rohmer," Variety's Joe Leydon has written, "the result might have looked and sounded like Mutual Appreciation." That indeed does give you a starting point for understanding what Andrew Bujalski (a Harvard film graduate, now thirty-one) is up to, except that these aren't Seventies American actors or later French ones, but mostly twenty-something American non-actors, and the result of the blending of methods and interests of those two older directors is different, of course, from either Rohmer or Cassavetes. Bujalski's film is grainy black and white, the look is rough, the scenes are improvisational and vérité. The topics and the conversations are delicate, however, like Rohmer's; there aren't any long harangues or violent arguments or tortured late-night epiphanies as was Cassavetes' way. Attractions, desires, choices – no huge dramas.

There's really just a triangle, two male friends and the girlfriend of one of them. The boyfriend is Lawrence (Bujalski himself); the girlfriend is Ellie (Rachel Clift). The other guy is Alan (Justin Rice, in real life founder of the indie-rock band Bishop Allen), who's just come to town (NYC, i.e., Brooklyn), whose band has split up, and who wants to get started again. Alan has an interview of radio, and the host, Sara (Seung-Min Lee) later hits on him. During the course of the action, at several times when Lawrence is away, Alan and Ellie acknowledge that they "like" each other. They have a "moment," as they say. But they don't do anything about it, as far as we see (the scenes are chopped off at the ends almost every time; that's the style). They both separately tell Lawrence about their "moment." Some consideration of gender roles comes up when Lawrence agrees -- very half-heartedly -- to participate in a reading of women's experiences with men; and when Alan is talked into putting on a dress. The trio of lovers and friends acknowledge the temptation to infidelity that has happened and end with a group hug. That's all that happens in the 109 minutes.

There's a hand-held camera, the grainy look of 16 mm., but Bujalski doesn't revel in the richness of black and white as Cassavetes' cameramen did. There's nothing particularly cinematic about Bujalski's method, which also has little to do with politics or current events or trends – except for the presence of cell phones. There are hardly any exterior shots. But something magical does happen in the way Bujalski and Rice and the other main characters, who aren't particularly photogenic, to put it mildly, start to look good to us, because the inner beauty of their natures – Alan's openness and positivity; Lawrence's sensitivity and goodness – gradually emerges from the thick grain. Because Bujalski's kitchen-sink use of awkwardness is so adept, it almost disappears. The pace is sometimes excruciating, but in a way this isn't a movie; it doesn't feel like one; and that's not so bad.

What makes the movie a success is the naturalness doesn't seem forced or self-conscious. The people aren't actor-y like Cassavetes and his pals. Their conversations are choppy and awkward sometimes, but alert, even witty. These aren't Actors Studio-style tortured-intensity Stanislawski moments, but remarkably believable recreations of twenty-first-century, twenty-something American conversations. Bujalski's characters, as his Wikipedia bio says, are "well-educated, yet socially inept young white people." The scenes, which include a show at a club that's not very well attended, and a little gathering at an older man's house afterward followed by another dying party of three women in wigs who dress Alan in drag, and phone conversations between Alan, the singer, and his father (one of them to voice mail, while Alan strums his guitar and doesn't answer), have a documentary feel, but it's a documentary that's niftily edited, about people observed so nicely you end by liking them.

In limited release. Seen at Cinema Village NYC September 18, 2006.

Without condemning the whole mumblecore movement, I think I sympathise more with its critics than its fans. The films certainly convey relationships between their characters realistically, and there are some scenes in each mumblecore film I've seen which I could almost recognise for myself, but I'm always overwhelmed by this slightly smug self-awareness that pervades many artists working under the 'indie' banner. It is easy to believe that the makers of these films are very similar to their characters – young, confused, directionless – but the fact that the focus most often falls on the progeny of the last bourgeois generation takes away the integrity of this gritty, frugal filming style.

Mutual Appreciation is as much a milestone of indie film-making as it is a victim of its own pretences. The observer paradox seems to pervade much of the dialogue, much of which feels calculatingly awkward – it is easy to distinguish between the improvised lines and premeditated lines. Having said that, I was struck by one scene where Alan is besieged by with women at a 'party' he wasn't certain about going to in the first place, and is eventually convinced to don a dress and make-up. Here it seems the actors were given the most room to ad-lib, and it's a brilliant piece of footage which seems to speak to the majority of young adults and their issues with projecting identity.

At times, this picture feels like a slimmed down Jean Eustache film or an extremely modest variation of Francois Truffaut's ''Jules et Jim." You're forced to wonder what more money or a bigger vision might have produced. While it's true that the characters here have slim ambitions, you consequently have to wonder -- even while remaining devoted to his uncannily subtle skill with character -- what else Bujalski has up his sleeve. A panning shot, perhaps? ''Mutual Appreciation" is his first New York film (''Funny Ha Ha" was set in Allston), and the world he's captured is true to Alan's hipster dreams and indie-rock goals. The character's emotional dial is set on ''emo," which means he lacks the social constitution to articulate himself. He's passive, aimless, and occasionally narcissistic. See Alan unhook himself from Sara (Seung-Min Lee), a cute radio DJ, without it costing him her brother, who's his temporary drummer. And watch as he carries on a flirtation with Ellie, who's also attracted to him. Her emotional intelligence, however, is superior. The women in ''Mutual Appreciation" are confident and direct. The men can be exasperatingly meek.

''Funny Ha Ha" was about a stalled 20-something and her romantic entanglements. (The woman who played her, Kate Dollenmayer, has a too-small part here.) ''Mutual Appreciation" is the second chapter in what seems like Bujalski's statement about people trying to find the right words as they move toward adulthood and negotiating their fears of commitment of any kind -- to a job, a person, or a complete thought. He could have called this movie ''A Tentative Yes." Of course, that title should do nothing to stop you from making an absolute commitment to see this film.

Wesley Morris

I bet Andrew Bujalski is sick of reading that he's the voice of his generation, when most of that neo-slacker demographic has never had the opportunity to see his films. Like Funny Ha Ha, Mutual Appreciation is hardly your standard Amerindie … It's shot on 16mm black-and-white, thus confirming Bujalski's allegiance to a strain of maverick films—Shadows, Stranger than Paradise, Clerks—that bring poignantly accurate renditions of subcultures of which their directors have intimate knowledge to otherwise homogenized screens. While Cassavetes is the most obvious influence, one might also regard Funny Ha Ha and Mutual Appreciationas Rohmer without subtitles. Both films are "moral tales" whose characters leap to language as offense and defense.—Amy Taubin

I saw this film yesterday at the Independent Film Festival of Boston and was pleasantly surprised. I just randomly picked it because i wanted to see something at the IFFB, and i loved the movie. Andrew Bujalski did a great job writing this conversion driven movie. The conversation felt so natural that I thought most of it was ad-libbed, but after the film he told us that while parts of the script were somewhat left open for ad-libbing, it was mostly written dialog. The main character, Alan (Justin Rice) has this wonderfully unique charisma, which really pulled me into the movie. Mr. Bujalski told us that much of that character was based on real life Justin Rice, and it came across well. I would definitely recommend checking out this movie if you can, especially for fans of Woody Allen, and it reminded me of Wes Anderson's work in some ways, probably just because of the characters.

Here's a drama of sorts, done up in grainy, black & white, faux verité style to simulate a documentary of a moveable feast of trust children and other well heeled, well educated slackers, all Brooklyn apartment denizens, whom we follow around during their standard issue daily lives. I suspect - though I don't know and haven't read - that the actors were told the general arc of the film and assigned broad outlines of their characters (maybe they even helped to develop them: the method of the English director, Mike Leigh), then allowed to ad lib within those limits. The dialogue surely has that feel.

The major subtext here is friendship. The action, if you can call a long series of sedentary conversations that, centers around a trio of characters: Lawrence (Andrew Bujalski, also the writer-director), his girlfriend Ellie (Rachel Clift), and Lawrence's long time best friend Alan (Justin Rice), who has just come to town after his rock band, "The Bumblebees," had broken up in Boston. A crackle of attraction fills the air between Ellie and Alan, and a lingering issue throughout the film is what will develop between them, and what will become of Lawrence's ties to both.

The principals and their friends prattle on about such crucial matters as the iron deficiency that can develop from vegan diets (Alan's friend's solution to this was: eat meat); honesty; what to do after someone kisses you; making pop music and performance art; taking "proactive control of one's destiny," as Ellie puts it to Lawrence at one point; obtaining and smoking good weed and occasionally maybe scoring some cocaine, though it's not a big deal; hitting Dad up for dollars; Buddhism; elliptical references to some other people - erstwhile close chums - getting married. .

Those are the searingly important issues of the day for these young adults. Nothing about politics, social or global issues. Not a word about career, except for Alan's aspirations to make it as a rocker (Mr. Rice has an arresting singing voice with a faintly Irish lilt to it). The talk goes on and on for 110 minutes. It's "My Dinner with Andre," without Andre. And without dinner. No arc. No resolution. No character changes. Not even an interesting idea or two. Just slices of daily life, like I said. The whole enterprise feels (a) realistic and (b) boring, agonizingly boring.

One saving grace is Mr. Rice, whose Alan is a shy, beguiling, endearing rogue of a fellow for sure. The other thing is absence of cigarettes. For the longest time I thought this would be a fag-free movie, and it almost is. Only in the 85th minute was one cigarette smoked, shared between Ellie and Alan as a sort of 40s style sexual signal. And not again. This film is marginally better than Lila Yomtoob's recent movie "High Life," about the same Brooklyn-dwelling, beer drinking young slacker social set.

My partner and I have ties to a group of "younger" adults, now approaching 40, who attended college together and then migrated more-or-less as a group to San Francisco, where most of them continue to live. Their bonds remain palpable and enduring. A dozen years ago their daily lives might have looked, to an outside viewer, a lot like the people in this film. Today it's different, but only in some respects. Most have solved the problem of vocation, one way or another, and they are more interesting than the 20-somethings because of it.

One has followed a traveling circus, becoming proficient as a sword swallower. When not on the road he lives in a warehouse by the Bay with his partner, a woman who arranges sets for the opera. Another flies in for parties from D.C., where he now works for the IMF. Yet another is an agronomist who is about to finish law school, and one sells art at an upmarket gallery near Union Square. Our friend, who has lived in Japan and studied Butoh dancing, is now a freelance, self-taught finish carpenter and fine cabinet maker.

Our friend only became political in his early 30s, shifting dramatically from indifference to activism. In terms of their intimate lives - their capacities to establish and sustain romantic or conjugal relationships - it's still a much more mixed picture for our friend's group. Some have married, others not. For several, although they are highly personable individuals, "permanent" love relationships still remain just beyond their reach.

I bring up this group not so much to suggest those things that may and may not change as singles move from their 20s into their 30s, but primarily to make a very different point. Our friend's friends would have no interest in or even knowledge of us, nor is it likely that we would know or care about them, fascinating people though they are, were it not for the connections – the social network – that exists through our friend. He was my stepson's dearest chum in childhood; my partner has known him since he was 5, and I have enjoyed his company for over 10 years. It is because of our friend that his circle interests us so.

To sharpen the point, there are only two reasons for anybody to care about the group of kids in this movie: (a) you identify with them: you're a kid yourself, in fact or in terms of your own psychological makeup; or (b) one of them IS your daughter, son, or a longstanding friend of theirs. For everybody else, and that's most of us, this film basically sucks. My grades: 5/10, C. (Seen on 02/09/06).

I saw Mutual Appreciation on the bottom row of a 'new release' section of a movie shop and it caught my eye. I usually am a sucker for movies that are deeper than the average celluloid we are bombarded with. I didn't have a great expectation for the movie, which turned out to be great. The dialog isn't deep. And it isn't meant to be. It's very real to life. The colours and positioning really captured the essence of the movie: bleak and monotonous. I did like it for the fact I felt that I could relate to more than one character, and the characters were realistic and likable. I've read previous remarks, and I suppose the only advice I can give is to watch the movie without expectations and with a open mind. On reflection, try and see if you can relate some of the central themes to your life and you will be pleasantly surprised. As a 16 year old that is trying to find movies that break the conventional mould, I found this refreshing and it made me hopeful for some reason. I will definitely be checking out Funny Ha Ha.

Throughout history, there have been people who have changed the world. Edison gave us the light bulb; Guttenburg the printing press. I feel I am offering a public service for all mankind just as great by warning people to stay away from "Mutual Appreciation".

It is perhaps the most monotonous movie I have ever seen. Nothing happens. These slackers, who are really disturbing to look at, just sit there and talk. I wouldn't have a problem with that if they had something interesting to say. They don't. And they have nothing to say in the most dreary manner possible. No ups, no downs. Just flat, unemotional speaking. It is just true torture. Please, please, for all that is good and holy, ignore the critics who liked this and avoid this horrific piece of...film.

I respect this movie very much. It does an excellent job of creating realistic situations and natural dialogue. But it almost feels too real at times. Watching this movie is as if I was sitting in a room watching my friends talk and mentally filming it. I respect the attempt but there's a reason why movies are scripted! Real life conversations can get boring at times. And in this movie, the director let many scenes run far longer than they needed to. And the lack of any semblance of a real story emphasizes its quality as a snippet of a week or so in the lives of three 20s New Yorkers.

Mutual Appreciation is one of the first I've seen where I feel totally like I am watching real life. And this creates some very funny moments. But it also leads to many dull points and a lack of direction to the film, which is easily recognized as the intention of the director. But I don't think it makes a great film. A film to be respected for its attempt, but not necessarily enjoyable or a great film.

If this film represents the voice of the twenty-something generation, we are in trouble. It's disturbing that so many claim to find genius, humor or even originality in this film. Comparisions with Cassavedes, who is riveting, Rohmer, who is profound, and Woody Allen, who is both funny and original, are insulting to those directors. The film is a colossal bore. It is not enough to be raw and real if your actors are unimaginative and your characters are given almost nothing interesting to say or do and your script shows little intelligence or originality. (The mole-must-be-removed motif has already been done, to much more hilarious effect, in Nichole Holofcener's "Walking and Talking.") I find it telling that in one of the user reviews, the writer feels compelled to apologize for falling asleep during the film. No, that is an entirely appropriate reaction.

Bring a pillow, a receptacle for excrement so you needn't stir, sign your will, and take your nemesis on a dream date.

Under acted, entirely improvised on the fly dialog. and mise-en-scene that leaves the camera unattended explores the boring spontaneous utterances of undergrads trying to make a really deep art film by saying a lot of "Like" and "So I go..." or "So I''m like..." . If they'd been black the most common utterance would've been repetitive "y'know what I'm saying ?"

Oh... and it's poorly filmed ...B&W.

Sound guys did workmanlike work. I hate this pretentious crap and was pleased I could turn it off. If at a cinema I would've assaulted a crippled ticket kiosk on my way out after 30'.

Bujalski's second feature is as unassuming as advertised, but leaves with the viewer an unique and moving feeling worth noting both for its penetrating depth and surface effects. Never in Mutual Appreciation's 110 minutes do we feel manipulated into a particular point of view or emotion, and Grunsky's camera never seems to try to lend meaning that isn't there. Instead Bujalski uses the medium in a wholly natural manner, one which is true to the time and experiences the film's characters move through, building the narrative to an emotional head brought about entirely by the passions and needs of his principal actors. It's a technique that can be difficult at first to appreciate specifically because it eschews virtuosity and the kind of razzle-dazzle that leaves structure, acting, and personal connection in the lurch, but as Mutual Appreciation plays out, it becomes clear that we are in the hands of a young master, one who can find profundity and practical importance in everyday interaction. Bujalski can see what people need at the most basic level and, with that, points toward bigger messages rather than telegraphing a sound-bite-ready understanding. Few American filmmakers working today (of any age) better understand the power of art to communicate a state of mind rather than a single, finite exclamation.

I don't know why people insists on labeling things (films, albums, etc.) like this. Can't we just like or not like a movie?

I really enjoyed Mutual Appreciation. If I had to judge it for its allegiance to my generation - which is zero, by the way - then I probably would find it lacking in many respects. but that is not why i rented it.

I loved the shooting, the editing & the acting. i thought the acting was great and natural with a touch of arrogance which went with its characters.

great job!

fun stuff.

I haven't really seen a film like this before. Really raw, somewhat rambling, confusing and wonderful. I have never been so pulled in. God, I hope this is the future of film. Enough already of Pirates and Snakes on a Plane.... This held such power. All in it being understated and real. I don't often come here to write on films I've seen, but when a movie sticks with me for a good five days, that's my signal to get onto the IMDb. I also just watch the movie DIG! about the Brian Joenstown Masacre -- I went out and bought a double best of album....M.A. has great music too So, If you like rough-around-the-edge,s realistic film-making, go. Now. This is the real deal.

Bobbi Stig

So, um... well, this is, like, my second so-called, uh, "mumblecore" film, and I'm... I... I can say with, um, absolute certainty, um you know, that I, I, um, well I f*cking hate it. If I wanted to hear obnoxious hipsters inarticulately babble about their stupid sh*tty bands, there are a billion coffee shops in this town I could hang out in. And the sad thing is, I can relate a little. This movie resembles my post-college years quite a bit. But that doesn't mean I want to watch something that is similar to my boring life. I just wanted to throw all these characters off a bridge (and Justin Rice has a very punchable face). But I don't want to be completely dismissive. I get that the awkwardness and inability to communicate is kind of the point, and there is some truth here. But this style of performance (not at all like Cassavetes, because Cassavetes used people who could actually do some acting) is far too irritating.

"The best narrative feature in the (Independent Film Festival of Boston) is Andrew Bujalski's Mutual Appreciation. Here Bujalski fulfills the promise shown in his 2003 debut feature, Funny Ha Ha. He has moved from the womb of Boston to the testing grounds of New York City and has shifted format to black and white, undaunted by the inevitable comparisons that will be made with every other indie filmmaker who's done the same, or by the irrelevant comparisons that will be made between his hero and that of every other indie film...Bujalski's limpid style and the seeming improvisations have the spontaneity and wit of real life...but when studied reveal the calculation and symmetry of art."—Peter Keough

"A droll, stonefaced, dead-on perceptive comedy of manners... Nobody gets the zeitgeist as right as Bujalski and his delicious cast."— Gerald Peary

This film is total zero (nula, nada...): no story, no (sensible) dialogs (concentrate on dialogs just for a try!), no acting (just ever smiling Alan), no action, no nothing... Some directors can tell an interesting story in the usual 90 minutes, while Andrew Bujalski spends 110 minutes to tell you ... nothing. The film looks as if it was made by a group of high school students after they had got their first movie camera. Get a group of students and let them make shots of their ordinary life – and I am sure that such a film would be better than Mutual Appreciation.

Maybe some people like such films – but then these films should be described and labeled as such - this film is NOT a comedy - this film is boredom (or should we call it "boredy"?), so that those who don't like it can avoid it on time. And before declaring this film a masterpiece, let me remind you on the Andersen's story about the emperor's new clothes.

I don't like Hollywood's unreal, highly sophisticated, artificial films full of action, shooting, special effects, etc. I see that this film has gone into the totally opposite direction (maybe even as a protest against Hollywood junk) – but it went too far; I suppose the state somewhere in the middle would be just right.

In short: unless you are doing a survey on the most boring films - avoid Mutual Appreciation.

Genuinely funny and humane, plus music that rings true as a bonus. It might change what you think is possible from American indies right now.

Here's an excerpt from Mahnola Dargis' NY Times review of the film: "It's the sort of unassuming discovery that could get lost in a crowd or suffer from too much big love, and while it won't save or change your life, it may make your heart swell. Its aim is modest and true."

And another excerpt from Owen Glieberman's Entertainment Weekly review: "If this is the sound of a new generation, then it may be the first generation cautious enough to embrace friendship as mightier than love."

First off, similar to what the highlighted review commented on, I definitely respect the people that made and that were in this movie. No question that it was an honest depiction of these people, or people like these people.

It felt like I was legitimately a fly on the wall, watching and listening in for every scene of their real life.That's good and bad, obviously. I appreciated it for what it was. I don't think it was trying to entertain at all, and that was fine, just know that going into it.

My one minor gripe with it was all the damn stops and starts in the dialogue. The characters would stammer and restart their sentences, or not complete their original thoughts, a lot. Again, minor, it just bugged me. These are likable people, I thought, but their level of confidence was frustrating at times. Then again, they came off as smart, insightful, sometimes funny, real people that seem like they'd be great real-life friends.

And that seems to be what the movie is about, ultimately.The friendship and real-life situations of three people. Nothing more, nothing less.