hunterwhales83 I expected to hate this movie. I had a friend who saw it, who had told me about it and mentioned there was ridiculous amount of nudity that seemed uncalled for and that the plot didn't really go anywhere. I've heard quite a bit about the mumblecore group of filmmakers with much criticism, and was still excited to see this movie and most likely tell everyone how much I hated it. Hated it I did not. Quite impressed, was what I found myself to be. To start off with first, there is a ridiculous amount of nudity in this movie. However, I didn't find it to be uncalled for at all. I felt that the director was showing us sex as it is. So often we see glamorized images of sex in Hollywood movies and it is so far from what sex really is. In this movie we see it plain and simply as what it is: two people having sex on a bed, a guy masturbating in the shower (which I could have done without but I feel it was done with purpose), or a girl putting deodorant on her crotch. I found all the nudity to be less tittalating than a typical Hollywood movie. When we watch Hollywood flicks the intention is usually to tittalate, this is to show people really having sex (and I honestly think they were) without all the gloss and glamour. And yes the movie is about sex, dealing with sex with an ex post relationship and how people feel about sex in general which we hear in the voice over questions that Swanberg records. From as far as I can tell these interviews seem very genuine and were unscripted, much like most of the movie. These are real people talking about both life and sex. This movie reminds me of Greg Araki's first film Totally f--ked up. Whereas that film was more of an examination of homosexuality, this is an examination of heterosexuality, and in my opinion Swanberg's film is much better (However, Araki's film was speaking to a different generation and I'm sure this will feel the same way years down the line). As for the plot, I wouldn't say it's the most original idea I've seen. It's basically about a girl who is still sleeping with her ex, and her friend who has a crush on her. Does it go somewhere, yes. At the end the two both move on and the friend seems to make peace with our protagonist (I also loved the little touch of the money in the envelope. Perfect). It's a simple plot, but the way it is executed is done very well and feels very real. I applaud Swanberg for this first attempt and look forward to seeing the work he will produce in the future. I have yet to say LOL and Hannah, but will be soon. Anyone interested in checking out the latest on the indiest of indie check out this piece with an open mind and you may be surprised at what you will find.

tedg I spend a lot of time with the films of young filmmakers. Sometimes I'm completely blown away, because of all the ordinary values and risk that youth carries. A life with film needs this, it really does.But its an investment that along the way brings a whole lot of disappointment. This is one such.You may take my view with qualification because one value I hold dear is the "long form," the ability to not just present a world but have something happens therein that matters. It isn't enough to merely display, you have to engage, transform, penetrate.These kids have some promising intuitions about this: there are within the story two guys: one is a photographer and the other apparently a sound editor. Also, the film alternates between interviews — ostensibly for the sound guy's project — and an ordinary watching of a certain young woman. We learn a few things about her, and along the way see a couple things not often seen in films. So there is structural folding in the thing.And the performances are natural. But that's not saying much because these characters are only half-people. We learn through DVD extras that this is who they actually are. There's some sex and nudity here. Commentors note that this also is natural. It didn't seem so to me, instead as artificially posed as usual. Yes, I presume that sex we see is "real," at least once. And the camera seems to be casual and lingers on odd trash as much as on bodies, something that mirrors the offhand Gen Y sense of awareness.But there's nothing done with this at all. One wonders why it was made at all, other than the four involved were bored.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

bertseymour7 This film was absolutely awful, I even feel uncomfortable calling it a film. Its the typical "mumblecore" movie, with zero plot and a bunch of aimless whiny twenty somethings stumbling around trying to "figure stuff out". I have tried to give mumblecore a chance, but lets be honest its just horrible.I am not out of sync with cinema, I appreciate Dogme95 films, Idioterne is one of my all time favorite films. So I do not mind if a film is cheaply made so long as there is some (ANY) substance.Everything in this film is horrid, the acting, the writing (or was it all improvised?), the direction, but MOST of all, above everything else, the camera work was just plain and simple nonsense. The camera was never anywhere logical, there was no consistency. I got to admit being a guy I had heard there was nudity in this film so I thought to myself well even if its horrible at least there's nudity (yea I know, I'm a jerk). Well thanks to the uber crappy camera-work you never really get to see anything, and the things you do see, TRUST ME - YOU DO NOT WANT TO SEE. This film made me want to vomit on numerous levels.The dialogue made me want to vomit, the camera-work made me want to vomit, but mostly the idea that this film was praised by some legit critics, well now that more than anything makes me want to vomit.

stobin31 What a time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called "filmmakers" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit "camerawork" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for "rebellious" or "advanced" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face "jack-off shot," so be ready). Look at the early films of any accomplished "indie" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite of it.