User reviews

This film apparently took four years to make, and the performers gave their time for free. Sadly, it shows. It consists of disjointed episodes: Part Two is shown first and details low points in the breakdown of relationships. Part One then shows the happier beginnings. None were sufficiently interesting to make me really care.

Mostly shot on hand-held cameras with poor light and colour balance, one vignette features a character acknowledging he is being filmed but does not satisfactorily answer why, or who by? Scenes in underground toilets and sparse lofts are echoey and lack human warmth. Dialogue is at least partly improvised, and it shows in repetition and superficiality. Noel Fielding is capable of wild flights of imagination, but is stifled by the format. His relationship is supposed to fly after a humourless ride on a Zamboni machine with an ice rink worker. The only gay relationship in the film bucks the challenge of how the couple meet by not starting until the morning after. A recently-promoted office worker climbs on a table, only to sing a joyless version of Molly Malone; technically accurate but as uninvolving as can be. Bizarrely, neither the bar staff nor the other drinkers pay any heed.

The film has some mildly amusing prospects - a rooftop spat between a zombie and the bride of Frankenstein - but these do not go anywhere and only remind us how little we care about the characters or their mundane romances.

For a film made in 2016, the quality of the footage is absolutely abysmal. No two shots seem to be from the same camera, everything's out of focus, exposure's all over the place and I don't think they've ever heard of grading. My Nan could make a better movie on her 2009 flip phone.

I wondered why the script was so bad and then I saw in the IMDB description that it was "improv-based". Enough said.

There are some seriously talented actors in this, and I really hope they're all giving the worst performances of their careers here because if not there must be some really terrible movies out there somewhere.

Some of the worst camera work and editing I've seen on TV. The acting wasn't good but the camera work, angles, editing really was poor and made the acting look worse. How does stuff like this get 4.8 and put on TV? Awful, not even funny and its supposed to be a comedy? I tried my best to get into what was going on yet none of it made any sense the way it was done. Did it really take 4 years to create this? Looks like it took 10 minutes with no storyboard or script!

Terrible vanity project, this is bad in every way, looks like it was filmed on a camcorder in the 90s, good cast but absolutely awful in every other way.

I barely ever write a review, but I risked seeing this film after seeing such dire reviews and scores in IMDb, and felt that it had been very unfairly treated. I really thought these vignettes felt real and believable for the most part. I suspect that some reviewers were expecting some sort of off-the-wall comedy based on who was in it. With the exception of Julia Davis's typically brilliant comedic performance (in a section that had a distinct and overt comedic Davis-ion tone), none of the other few comedic actors need have had such a background. It was well-observed, very well-acted and it resonated with me, even if I couldn't personally relate to all of the scenarios. There wasn't anything I disliked about this film, and even the poorly filmed parts were that way for a reason. And seeing part 2 first felt perfectly right too. After having watched it, I was glad I did, and I understood why it had been nominated for an award. Rotten Tomatoes had a much fairer aggregate score of 75%. It really goes to show that IMDb scores should be taken with a pinch of salt sometimes.