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.

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.

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.

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.