Would have been a better title. Sounds like.

or "My Parents"

I have heard it called "jilling off." Works for me.

Whatever you want to call either the film or its central action, sounds like just more precious crap to me. Reading its plot was kind of entertaining; no need to go watch it.

Wow. I usually think Andrew O'Hehir's pretty spot on, but I can hardly believe he's describing the same movie I saw: a derivative compendium of indie cliches. Oh, that bit's from Clerks, oh, look, the whisper-some-important-thing-in-the-ear bit from Lost in Translation, whoops, a little Chasing Amy there. A little sage counsel from an old geezer--played by a beloved character actor from yesteryear, in this case Charles Durning, plus a nasty abusive father turn from a sitcom veteran, in this case Tom Arnold, add a montage of someone smoking and driving through rainy streets at night with one of the three awesome songs by obscure bands you've discovered for your movie, and we're good to go. Jason Ritter was fine, but the group I was with wondered how it even made it into the festival.

Could it be because she's talented?

Seriously, I wouldn't expect such a statement from any adult outside of a frat house let alone from a professional critic.

I agree with Eric "...and how a female writer captured that world so perfectly I'll never know..." is surprisingly sexist. You never hear male writers or directors questioned in this way when they create female characters. In fact, through most of film history, men have been the ones creating our vision of who women are, how they act, and how they talk. From Magnificent Obsession to Steel Magnolias, men have been helming "women's movies" without anyone's jaws dropping at the verisimilitude (which is of course questionable, but hey, it's movies).

a film is a film.