User reviews

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.

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 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.

This might have been funny as a five minute SNL sketch, but it didn't work as a movie. Don't waste your time.

Not for everyone admittedly, but rejecting it simply for the reason it is something off-beat and irregular is just a mistake.

This 70 minutes long satiric comedy sketch gives one an askew glimpse into the greeting-card and holiday industry.

Simple yet complex. Movie lovers will find little echoes of some films and TV-shows mixed in this bit. Most palpable influences I dare say were Enemy(Villeneuve), Punch-drunk Love, Dr. Strangelove, and for some oddly surprising reason some parts of Mulholland Dr.

I found it to be filled with heart, brains and subtlety.

Nothing serious, just a well written, very well acted and directed elongated sketch. Some will be bored to tears, some others (like me) will be enjoying this one with an idiotic smile on their faces. Watch and see for your self.

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.

I knew nothing about this movie before turning it on, but assumed it would be a comedy, from the main few cast members. Boy, was I wrong. It has a little humor, but no big laughs. It was a drama somewhere between The Big Lebowski and a sendup of a Hitchcock thriller, with a few moments that were almost out of a Wes Anderson film. I'd recommend this if you like the quiet and surrealistic storytelling of Lebowski. The story doesn't make much sense when viewed through the lens of realism, but should be viewed with a bit of whimsy. Bob Odenkirk gives a reliably good performance, as we've come to expect from him after his more serious, introspective work on Better Call Saul, and the rest of the cast present a perfect landscape for his character. This film might not be for everyone, but it's short enough (just over an hour) that it won't put you out much to give it a watch, and the action, while sometimes confusing, moves quickly enough that it keeps your attention from start to finish.

Well, I didn't really have great expectations for this movie, but, even so, it was a total let down. The plot is not just confusing, it's also unpolished, messy and BAD. The 1h10 of the whole movie felt more like three or four hours for me. Bob Odenkirk is a really good actor and, in fact, I really don't think any of the parts played in the movie (aside from Stacy Keach's) were poorly executed at all, but in the end, the script was just unsavable. I can honestly say that 1 star is almost overrating it, and I wouldn't bear watching this film ever again. I can't say I just don't recommend it, as I actually recommend that all of you just STAY AWAY from it.

So, you're still in bed at 1 p.m. composing comments on friends' FaceBook shares, eating the other half of a stevia-sweetened chocolate bar from the night before, and then you move on to Netflix to get further from reality--where you see the face of beloved Bob Odenkirk in a harmless sounding title: "Girlfriends Day". You give it a look-see. You don't turn from it in irritation or boredom--it's holding you with the inscrutable power of untapped human potential. Every character looking at Odenkirk seems to be waiting for "something" to happen. Then his landlord takes action. And then I'm clapping for a brilliant moment, and barking out loud with laughter from my unused vocal chords at another moment. I get comfortable. I know that I, too, like Odenkirk's character, will write again. This film is exquisite.

Why, in pretty much every movie, is the lead male cast @ 20 years older than the lead female cast?

I've been wanting to check out Nobody. Not having 'free' access to it yet, when I saw this pop up on my Netflix front page, I thought this would be a good substitute until I saw it was one of the lowest 'matches I had ever seen. It was like 50 something percent. I didn't even know they went that low. That piqued my curiosity even more. When I saw the run time of and hour five, I was in. So todays lesson is nobody better than nobody. This movie crushes on so many levels, from the ridiculous plot to the devastating details. Do not pass this one by. I will be making an IMDB account now just so I can start rating these movies, because this score is asinine!

This is really short, almost to a degree where I was thinking if the running time indicates this to be a TV show. It isn't, it's a feature length that just is way shorter than the 90 minutes we are used to. And it's not a bad thing, quite the opposite. Odenkirk is really something, the way he portrays the character of his ... just amazing and really grabbing the attention of the viewer.

Having said that, the script is as quirky as it can get. You have quite a few actors you may know if you watch the odd movie or two (or a hundred). Also some TV shows, like Mad Men. The humor is dry and awkward at times, which is something you must like otherwise you might have issues with the movie itself. So you are warned or let's say prepared for what is ahead. It's fun, it's short and it is entertaining. I really had a good time, flaws and all.

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.

An oddball mystery-comedy set in an imagined world of greetings card writers and their hangers-on. It is a goofy idea, played straight and with a very bleak aesthetic that I found difficult to like. Just too dry for me - nobody to root for in a world that I never got into.

Bob Odenkirk plays Ray Wentworth, A greeting card writer. No don't stop reading, well you can if you intend to watch the film immediately. If mot read on. Greeting cards are dull and only bought for those special occasions, almost as an after thought, think on.

Greeting cards are edgy and dangerous and potentially deadly to those who fall foul of the big business cogs whirring away in the background. Wentworth former card writer of the year, down on his luck, lacking inspiration loses his job. The card industry need to create extra interest and a new market for the industry create "Girlfriends Day" Cue various dudes try to inspire / coerce Wentworth to write that award winning card for the big day. Its a bit like Fargo in that there's various desperate villains who will do whatever they can to get that verse. 2 ex Nazi's for example. The film features Steven Michael Quezeda (Gomey) and Ed Begley Jr (better Call Saul and of course Odenkirk so there is a bit of a BB BCS crossover. Which isn't a bad thing.

Odenkirk is great by the way and feasibly the character isn't a million miles away from Saul.

The sign of a really really bad movie is when your 1/2 into it before you realize you've watched it a couple of years ago and didn't like it then either.

I couldn't fully buy into the absurd plot, but 'Girlfriend's Day' manages to make itself work... just about.

Bob Odenkirk is good. I know it's a lazy claim, but this could definitely be a sequel to 'Better Call Saul'; there are even alums from that universe in this in Steven Michael Quezada and Ed Begley Jr. - I thought I saw Tina Parker appear too, though it is in fact Stephanie Courtney. There are many known faces in this, which is a tad surprising given the Netflix filler-esque feel; especially with the run time at just 70 minutes.

All in all, it's all watchable. It is a bit of a strange ol' film though, so I can see why some would dislike it.

Waste of time but good acting 5 points for the lead

It's as deep as a greeting card and as heavy as a foil balloon - and delivers as much pathos as a valentine limerick - if you've got that expectation and you choose to give it a go you will enjoy this little farce.

Had all the elements of an Odenkirk production: It's a rollicking mash of slice-of-life, crushing failure, latent romance, and colorful character.

Folks point out that the story is a bit confused... and they're right. There's a way of managing essential vs. negligible detail in a story. I suspect it can be rightfully and respectfully said that Odenkirk has a way of blurring that line; a way that some folks find off-putting and others find charming. Personally, I find it charming. You may not find it charming, so you've been warned.

Girlfriend's Day is a labor of love. Tune it in, hang with it, and it may pay off with the delight and warmth of a mystery greeting card, hovering preborn in the aethers, and whose message we may never know.