First, a comment to the two reviewers who found this film 'slow,' etc;The pace of films - for MOST of the 20th century were at a much slower pace. It lets the director get to know the characters, etc.In today's film market - in which a HUGE part of the pie is overseas sales/distribution - dialogue doesn't translate, but, ACTIONS do.That's one of the reasons why most films of the past decade or so, have interchangeable plots, characters - the story is second to the action.Saying that, let me talk about MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY.I came in a few minutes after it had begun. I'd never seen, nor heard of it (my friend had left the TV on, and was actually watching something prior - FLAWLESS, with R. DeNiro.I came in when Micah was in a cab bringing the lost wallet he'd found back to it's owner, Jo (I know that they'd had casual sex just before this, and didn't know each other).I got caught up in the dialogue. It was slow. It as natural, as to how two people meet (awkwardly) at inopportune times. I quickly picked up on the ambivalence Jo' was having, and Micah, just trying (at first) to get to know Jo a bit.The film follows them throughout that day - and that night, as the two start to reveal more of themselves. A third important cast member, who's very important, is the sprawling city of San Francisco. I love the cinematography done on this film. It's a loving portrayal of San Francisco.The pair walk through streets, and neighbourhoods, that are far from the shiny images tourists see, or think of, when they hear the city's name.As for the performances of both the two (verbal) actors, I enjoyed their charisma, and I hope to see more from them in the future.MEDICINE FOR MELANCHOLY is not for people who are impatient, or 'don't get' plots. But, for those who enjoy spending an afternoon, and just letting a film wash over you, this one's definitely one to watch.

Micah and Jo' wake up next to one another after an one-night-stand at a drunken party. Slipping away they awkwardly go their separate ways, but Micah sees her later to return her wallet. They spend the remainder of that day together, biking and walking around San Francisco and chatting generally as they go. This is about the size of the plot and those looking for more of a definite narrative should probably be warned that this is very much a niche indie film that will appeal chiefly to those that like the film almost before they have seen it. I'm not sure if I fall into that category as an older casual viewer but then I did make a certain amount of effort to get hold of the film so I suppose I did have a vested interest to like it. And mostly I did like it: mostly.The low-key indie feel of the whole film will feel pretentious to some I'm sure but for me it had a certain lo-fi charm that came from the project as a whole. Although the path of the two characters didn't really strike me as realistic or convincing, the charm with which it was delivered helped me to put this out of my mind for the most part. This allowed me to hang out with them as they bumble around the city together in a way that will be recognisable to anyone who has done the same in any major city. In this regard I really liked the film and I enjoyed the "coolness" of it and I didn't care too much that "nothing was happening" in a traditional sense.This makes for a very slight film and it needed to have a conclusion that fits that – which it sort of does, the problem is more what it includes in the final third. We suddenly have discussions over race that feel clunky compared to the majority of the scenes that had gone before; this made it a little grating and didn't fit with the rest of the film. Of course this does fit well when compared to the sudden introducing of a meeting of random people discussing gentrification in San Francisco, this doesn't fit at all and indeed this sudden introduction of social commentary just clunks onto the screen without any real context or relevance, giving the impression that the film wants to have this aspect but wasn't able or willing to make it part of the whole film, but rather just one scene.The charm of it is key though and the casting was very important in making this work. Finding Wyatt Cenac in the lead was a surprise and perhaps a bit of a worry since I generally find him to be the least able of those on the Daily Show; I like him but his performances on that show are never as good as John Olivier, Larry Wilmore or some of the stronger ones. Here though he is awkwardly charming in a weird geeky way. He does walk a fine line because at times he could have been irritating but he keeps it on the right side of the line. He is helped a lot by his chemistry with Heggins. She is wonderfully awkward and cute; OK she never got her character's motivations through to me but I still really took to her and to both of them together.Medicine for Melancholy is a very slight film though and it is not something to come to with high expectations. Rather the indie design and delivery is something that charms those that left it, thanks to the work by maker Jenkins and also the chemistry of the lead two. The attempts to have some form of commentary or meaning in it really clunk towards the end but ultimately, while not great, it is a lo-fi indie pleasure.

I have no idea what these other reviewers are talking about. Usually these types of glowing reviews are sneaked in by people associated with the film to "prop it up" on the web. This is a painfully slow, bleak looking amateurish "student film" grade bore, topped with an implausible feeling. Forced, pretentious performances especially on the part of the girl played by the amateurish Tracey Heggins. I couldn't keep watching it after the first 10 minutes. I've seen too many of these where you're hoping against all hope that the film will get better - it doesn't 99% of the time so give it up now. I really can't understand what the fuss was about regarding this film on the festival circuit.

And this is coming from someone who eagerly anticipated seeing this film. I was not impressed. In fact, I was bored stiff for most of the film.It started off with a lot of promise. I was engaged to the mystery of these two totally different characters, brought together by a one-night stand and reunited by curiosity--possibly loneliness. Despite her cattiness, I approved of the idea of him pursuing her and finding out who she really is. As I expected, she turns out to be a lonely yet worldly, intelligent, open minded woman who became smitten by the equally lonesome, pro-black charmer with radical ideologies. The dialogue was great and the cinematography was solid.Then, the film went left for me. It started with the preachy conversation they had at her place. It was appropriate but too convenient for the telling of this story. Then we move on to some uninteresting visuals inside a museum, some angled on passages I needed to be a speed reader just to take in before it was cut away, only to learn that I was being preached to even more. The whole 2nd ACT seemed to be stretched out in order to reach the necessary amount of minutes needed to be categorized as a legitimate feature. I mean, that party scene was longer than the both of "House Party" and "House Party 2," and what happened? Nothing. Just a long, drawn out uneventful party scene.To make things worse, the filmmaker threw in this moment featuring a community group discussing gentrification, a subject I'm deeply concerned about. However, it was touched on just enough to feel forced and not enough to hold any relevance for the story.Also, the acting seemed flat, mostly due to the male lead.In the end, I didn't know these characters at all. I wanted to care but I really didn't. I learned absolutely nothing. I even found myself reaching for a connection between gentrification and the love story. I may see how the main characters and their choices are being influenced by it, but that's me pushing it. The connection was unclear, leaving me with the only option of looking for something that might not be there. It wasn't a good film. 4/10.