GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

ottosg77-959-561099 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.

geminiredblue Beginning in the early 2000s, a group of young 20-something filmmakers got together and made gritty little movies about other young 20-somethings. Almost always funny, quirky, and insightful, their movies have come to define my generation and the generation to follow! Somewhere along the way, the term "Mumblecore" was attached. While admittedly I haven't seen anywhere near the amount of Mumblecores, I've seen a good number. My personal favorites are: THE PUFFY CHAIR, FUNNY HA HA! and this one. Ironically, both of the last 2 were made by the same director Andrew Bujalski. When I first found out about him, I was still in college, one day dreaming of becoming a mumblecore filmmaker too. And I was all too thrilled to discover that he was releasing a new movie... and would be appearing in person at the Maryland Film Festival, right near my college! Talk about a match made in Heaven! So there I was, when I actually got to talk with the director BEFORE he screened MUTUAL APPRECIATION. Fun times! What's so great about MUTUAL APPRECIATION (or MA for short?) Where to start? 1) It's filmed in glorious black & white. 2) It's got a gritty John Cassavetes feel. 3) It's about real-life people in real-life situations. 4) It's not afraid to show the in-between times in the lives of young adults in their 20s and 30s. 5) It's funny as hell! Not funny haha (yes, pun intended) but funny thoughtful!The shifting dynamics of the main characters is incredible. In just one five-minute scene, the tone could go from comedic to tragic to pathos and back, with everything in between. As stated above, the director wisely shows us the quiet moments and gray areas that make up a large portion of our lives. In the middle of MA is Alan, an aimless young fellow who has come to the Big Apple to start a music career. Along the way, he falls in and out of love, seems listless in finding a steady job, and wanders into situations that he later wishes he hadn't gotten into. The great thing about Bujalski's 2 movies is that they begin and end in the middle of scenes, a lot like Cassavetes. That works because as Ray Carney once said "We live and die in the middle of muddles." If you're new to the new indie movement, see either of Bujalski's movies or THE PUFFY CHAIR! However, this is my favorite Bujalski film.

Maggot-6 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'.

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.