Girlfriend's Day

I had no expectations and didn't look into the movie before I watched it. I just put this on, knowing Bob Odenkirk was in it.

I don't really understand why, but it seemed like the plot was intentionally nonsensical and simple. It was a weird mix of very predictable and very confusing. Like a greeting card, perhaps?

I enjoy experimental movies just as well as popular ones, but after watching it, I can't help but feel like it should either have been shorter, or had more content.

What I'm really trying to wrap more nicely than it feels, is that I think the writing felt unfinished. Or perhaps the first sketch after a writer's block. Yeah, that bad. I think the only moral or interesting point brought up in the movie was the quote in the opening scene.

Yet, I still enjoyed Bob's acting, but none of the characters really stood out to me in this one. I guess most notable to me was Natasha Lyonne, playing her usual playful character and Steven Michael Quezada playing his usual dutiful and determined working-class character. Amber Tamblyn had a few interesting moments as well - but it all felt very rushed and underdeveloped.

I'll be very surprised if this will end up rated highly. I think I might even have overrated it.

The pace is very slow. The plot is very thin, and lacks intensity or thrill. It just could have easily been shortened to half the time. The plot is a bit unlikely and contrived.

There is a fair amount to enjoy here: the performances are as good as you'd expect from the likes of Odenkirk - if anyone could make writing a greetings card interesting, then Bob's your man.

But I was disappointed with the direction the plot took - which steered away from the central premise of a slightly surreal and quirky tale of a divorced, down-on-his-luck, greetings card writer who, faced with redundancy (in multiple areas), is presented with an opportunity for romance and redemption.

This promising scenario was somewhat side-lined in favour of a murder plotline (this is all in the trailer, but there were multiple routes the plot could have taken).

The initial main hook: can Odenkirk's character write the greatest romance card ever - is answered, to some degree, but felt like a cop-out.

I was more interested in the budding romance between Odenkirk and Tamblyn than who killed a minor side-character - in fact, I could've done without that distraction altogether.

Movies should be judged on whether they achieved what they set out to portray - but I'm left confused as to what the writers had in mind here.

This was a short fairly low budget picture that got made due to Bob Odenkirk and his name after Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. If we had to see the Los Angeles river flood channel (or whatever they call it) one more time I was going to scream. The city must charge very little to shoot there at it was almost a character. I found a few places to laugh but not enough to recommend this as a comedy. It is an offbeat quirky picture with some nice scenes but nothing more. The one standout performance was Amber Tamblyn as Jill.

The script, the actors, the production values here are excellent.

There's just one thing that ruins it.

The director. Michael Paul Stephenson decided "I want this to be a slice of life movie", instead of a film noir movie. He could have made this artistic and hilarious, bu the decided instead to screw the entire production over. The guy just totally ruined what could have been a fantastic film.

He's a dickhead. Watch this film and try to imagine it much darker, much more stylized, and like an homage to the 1940s/1950s films of Fred McMurray, Humphrey Bogart. Laurent Bacall and Ingrid Bergman. This could have been so much better. SO much better.