Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

TeenzTen An action-packed slog

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Martin Teller 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.

tjpmkp 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.

nycritic I sincerely hope I am wrong about my conclusion. I would like to be the one who leaves a sliver of a chance that it's not so. However, every time I go back to this film, seen recently, I seem to gravitate inevitably to my initial belief: that those in the know (film critics, et. al.) and I watched completely disparate movies. Which happens to lead me into a postulate I've come to accept as true: never trust critics, especially when the praise for a film, ranging from "under-the-radar" to the most blatant exercise in commercial grandeur, is unanimous in establishing how much of a must-see it is. It's as if they -- the Ones who are responsible for grading these films -- and the director, producer, and/or anyone involved in the making of such a movie decided to promote the crap out of this despite its clear flaws. And that's all right. It happens all the time. Fashion is dictated by such means; it has to be in order for certain styles to be executed. That's why suddenly, for the past year or two, turquoise and coffee brown have shown up in showrooms ranging from designer labels to Pier One Imports and/or even IKEA. Such things don't happen randomly.Such is the case with this movie by Andrew Bujalski. I had read the near perfect praise for it last fall and was impressed by what was being written about it. I decided, maybe this little film is something that I could catch, and I always gravitate towards the unpredictable before succumbing to the latest blockbuster or overblown, Oscar-ready drama. So I take a chance on it, am genuinely impressed by its look, reminiscent of the style of films from the early Sixties -- Eric Rohmer immediately came to mind, then John Cassavetes who in the Seventies did groundbreaking work with little artificiality. The grainy black and white drew me in as well as the natural, "unscripted" dialog. However, the more I saw it, the less I felt I was watching anything that really merited its viewing. The endless talk, the planned cleverness (I could be wrong but this is what I surmised) of every scene... the fact that this seemed to be an imitation of a type of film-making that has been out of style for years now... that did me in. When a story -- or a lack of a story -- becomes so cloying that there is nowhere for it to go but out, something has to be done.I think that this is the type of film that is best appreciated by film students who can take in the concept of cinema for the sake of it -- images just there, unpolished -- and enjoy its bare existence. It's really the only audience whom I can see this being aimed to, although needless to say there are people who will go nuts for this type of film which is really an experiment more than an experience. I just am not that kind of person.

anack10 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.