Nice effects though.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

One of the things I always like about Swanberg's pictures ("Drinking Buddies," "Happy Christmas," et. al.) is how the characters' lives are always framed around work: however certain viewers might gripe about their dwelling unduly on the personal woes of twentysomethings, to my mind, there's something astute and Douglas Coupland-esque about their refusal to act like the people they're showing us don't have to go back to work, make sure their love lives are stabilized while on break, then patch things up during lunch or on the week-end, etc.This one's charming and unpredictable and savvy, which makes it, it would appear, a bit of a problem for the non-astute viewer used to being hit over the head: it's not "drama," it's drama. (Check out the part where the guy observes, "Office Romance: Good idea or Bad Idea? Bad Idea, but, okay ... now what?" Somehow these things don't come up in rom-coms where everyone can afford airfare easily.)Whimsical disappointment, and, I guess whimsical "spoiler" alert: the movie's got a slinky in it, but we never see it going down "the stairs"! ("What! I paid $8 to see this? Show me the slinky ... going all the way!")

Looking at the comments on this film on this and other websites it is clear that this is a rather polarising affair – it is difficult to find a balanced review as people seem to love it or hate it. I'm not sure why because for me it is an OK piece of cinema vérité that has some strengths but ultimately doesn't work unless your requirements are for it to be "natural". Some have said that the film is unrealistic but I think this is unfair because to me Hannah does ring true – and if you doubt this then I would suggest you go onto Tumblr (the current "trendy" blog platform) and subscribe to any one of the countless blogs maintained by young professionals working their first jobs in the creative sectors. This comes over like a criticism and perhaps it is because for me the film is fairly bang on the money when it comes to Hannah – although I guess she is as representative of her generation as much as any one person can represent a group of millions (ie they can't).The film follows her through a period of time and many conversations with her partners, colleagues and friends and nails her in how rather self-centred and selfish she is when it comes to her relationships. Some of this is clunkingly obvious to the point of being a bit irritating but mostly it feels natural. It seems this is mostly down to Gerwig, who is utterly convincing in who she is, a feat that is more impressive due to the lack of script (although I suppose she may be this person but I shall assume she is not). The problem is that, given how rather annoying Hannah is, the film seems happy to let the viewer wallow in her life without a lot of interest going on once her character has been established as much as it will be (which is early on). Without much happening we are left with only the characters to hold the viewer in the film – in particular Hannah. The problem is that this is not something that appeals and, even if it does, the lack of any sort of destination (thematically, emotionally, narratively – you name it) means that you get little back from the film.Ultimately, for all its naturalism and the appeal this offers me, the film goes nowhere and just leaves me with people that I have no reason to have patience with and, although I gave the film the time it wanted, I find myself taking nothing away from it other than a sense of time wasted. As an experiment it is interesting and Gerwig is a big part of the film working at all but it amounts to very little and has the further downside of suggesting that this is somehow the standard for independent little dramas now. Ignore the hyped praise and ignore the scathing criticism – the truth is somewhere in the middle albeit it more towards the critical end of the spectrum.

I am from Europe and have been living in US for 2 years. I mostly watch films like this one: low budget, simple camera etc. especially I love films where 'nothing is going on' with one room and 2 people talking about nothing. But still could not connect with this one. I find it shallow, empty. Maybe I am wrong but can not get rid of the feeling that is all Matt Duplass' fault. I have seen also My puffy chair and felt the same (both films on Sundance Channel which is by the way the best thing I get through whatever is provided from my cable company). Also contrary from most other comments I found the main girl interesting… soft and tender

Let's be honest. Your movie could have Tom Cruise, Greta Garbo, Robert DeNiro and many other "stars" in it. It could be a collaborative piece co-directed by Martin Scorsese, Howard Hawks, Jean-Luc Godard. Sven Nykist could be doing the camera work. You could bill it as Robert DeNiro having real on screen sex with Greta Garbo and on and on and on. However, if it doesn't have a script or has just a minimal outline, then it will never be what it could be. Shows like Reno 911 are the exception to the rule. They are both no means the norm. "Hannah Takes The Stairs" suffers from having no script. It is its glaring weakness and what, in the end, makes it wholly unsatisfying. As a whole, the story wanders around way too much and does not give its viewer a reason to really care for any of its characters. It is the kind of film you watch once and then forget about totally. If you were to ask me, should I see "Hannah Takes The Stairs", I would say, "Definitely. Watch it once but you won't ever want to watch it again."