Absolutely the worst movie.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

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.

Two actors, a simple story . Two college friends and lovers met 20 years later in the same city. The screenplay is there to be followed but it seems everyone could write it or even the actors during the shot could amend it with the director and screenplay writer approval to changes because of this is a simple story like a children tale that everyone could pass through: a kind of archetypical tale. Back to the film, it is indeed simple, simple scenarios, black and white, good performances. The story drags you into your own story or someone else from your college. The film invites you to listen old love stories in old houses. There you see the characters finding remembrances, old notes, and letters, secrets, grievances buried in a pile of years. A man and woman in a search of life meaning came across each one way a second time to inquire about what the best track from now on. Good cinema, , a never-ending theme to be explored by a sensitive filmmaker. Great film!

As a person fuelled by emotions that I increase and trasform into a hurricanes inside my soul, I claim: this film gives you a magical experience of living through strong emotions. The issue is not about just me being an impressible spectator. It's about having no expectations for the film and then receiving amazement and pleasant satisfaction after watching it.These are the reasons why:1. Actors: I know Sarah Paulson as a good dramatic actress, so I expected a good performance from her. But still I am impressed about how versatile she is, turning from silly behaviour to feeling pain and sadness in 1 second. I haven't seen Mark Duplass before, but he left a rewarding experience. Sometimes I thought that he was overacting, but then I recalled my thought about men: they are just as children when it comes to emotional expression. So, who knows, maybe his acting was natural.2. Script: Mark Duplass took on the role of script writer too. Though, wait, there was no script to this film. I think it helped actors to wear their roles as own faces and transformed this film into well-shot POV taken from characters' archieve. Of course, the plot is not forward-looking. But the final makes me feel happy, because even if it is more or less obvious what is going to be next, we don't know what is to happen after the last glance. 3. Picture: The visual component of the film is gorgeous. It is that situation, when the black & white imagery is totally appropriate (it's like a retrospective in the present: old feelings are experienced after 20 years). The cameraman worked well with the view. As a result, the whole film is a visual bliss.4. Style: What is that wins over in this film is the style, which is fully matured. Starting with the clothes of the main characters (thanx costume designers for the mix of a coat, a knitted cap and a dress with a bright flower pattern) to the interior of Jim's house, from the music to the silence (even the silence is underlining the style). Everything looks beautiful, languishing and luscious, as a red-ripe fig.5. Soundtrack: Did you notice it? I didn't. Idon't know if it is good or bad. But it inflooded the narration, and it is good. All in all, this film infected me with feelings, and now I have a lot to go through for the next hours or even days.10/10

I do not understand how anyone could give this bad excuse a "10." Mark Duplass, who has some talent, owes an apology to all filmmakers who struggle to make their art. This exercise in bad judgment and self-indulgence is atrocious. As may be commonly known, there was no script for this film. That is painfully obvious as we watch Sarah Paulson, an otherwise fine actress, fake her way through this, following Mark Duplass's meandering lead. If we cared about these people and wanted to have an intimate look at their lives, this might have been a touching film. But because neither of them gave me any reason to care, all I could do was sit and watch in slack-jawed amazement. Sarah (as Amanda) and Mark (as Jim) stumble into each other at a supermarket after apparently not seeing each other for 20 years. Although Sarah has purchased ice cream for her sister, in addition to other items, she agrees to join Mark for a coffee at a place called the "Blue Jay." This cafe does not have any other importance in the film and begs the question, "Why was this film called 'Blue Jay'?" We follow Sarah back to Mark's mother's house as he attempts to pack it up after her death. During this process, we understand that Sarah and Mark have history, and as the film unfolds, they have a fantasy moment of what their lives would have been like had they remained together. Although I will allow that there were several sweet moments during their imagining of "what if," we had to endure endless stupidity having to do with them both doing "rap" music, making stupid sounds, doing stupid dances, and making up stupid dialogue. Again, if these two individuals were deeply engaging, I would have happily followed their story. Perhaps because I wanted a STORY (and not some out- of-control blabber-fest that felt like: Let's hit this point about 15 minutes in; let's hit the next point about 30 minutes in, ad nauseam...), it was hard to invest myself emotionally in the lives of two people that actually could have been interesting. Things get borderline maudlin with the discovery of "the letter that was never sent" and the "confession" from both sides about the "tragedy that should have never happened." I'm sorry; for all of Mark's Oscar-winning (in his mind) crocodile tears, I didn't buy his performance for a minute. He seemed like a first-class wimp, a crybaby, an emotionally stunted a**hole who was apparently incapable of manning up for over 20 years and was, I guess, going to go on and live in anger and denial till the day he died instead of coming to terms with the past. Yes, there are people like that... and in the hands of a qualified actor, I would have felt those things. But Mark has a certain detachment about him that makes him come across as a failed stand-up comic or a serial murderer -- it's hard to tell. Bottom line: I could not like him. Sarah fared better, but because she spent the majority of the film under an absolutely ghastly ski cap, even her Hollywood smile couldn't help her in the wardrobe department. As another reviewer said, it seemed that the Duplass Brothers (or whoever was involved in this amateur 80 minutes) scored a camera (and Sarah) for the weekend and said, "You know what? Why the hell not?" And so... they made this mistake. I do not think it was brave or fresh or emotionally moving. I always felt that they were just about reaching for straws as they tried to "improvise" what they were going to say next. The further along it went, the more Mark dropped in my estimation (and I actually liked him in "Your Sister's Sister."). He said at the beginning that his face "leaked" -- "Leaked?" Give me a break; was that supposed to be funny? By the time he really was supposed to be crying (and I'm sure he thought he was brilliant), I was looking for my barf bag. Last, who on earth goes around by the name of "Waynie" ? It's amazing that the prod co managed to press Clu Gulager into service as the manager of a liquor store. He actually seemed real and I would have much rather heard his story. But why did they have to name him "Waynie"? I found it borderline vulgar and insulting. Sorry, I went into this with an open mind, struggled to get through it, found a few entertaining moments, maybe even a twinge of sadness during Mark's big "breakdown," but over all, this is like a demo of what the film COULD be following the FIRST draft of a screenplay. There could have been a much more polished version of it if some thought had been applied instead of saying, "Yeah, hell, sure, let's go for it." Throughout the whole film, I kept asking my husband, "But what about the ice cream that she bought for her sister?"

4 settings, 3 actors, 2 colors, 1 day and 80 minutes that will warm your heart.An emotional story that develops between old school friends who meet again after 20 something years after their ways part. Mark Duplass and Sarah Paulson have an amazing chemistry together and deliver high class performance. With well-written dialogues, relatable story line, and good music, it is the one of the best Indie movies of 2016.Expect to be amused, sad, melancholic, and nostalgic throughout the movie. I gave it 10 and would recommend it to everyone who appreciates good movies.