It's funny that the OP started this topic today. I quoted the movie yesterday in this thread.
I guess it's a matter of taste. Most people like this movie because it feels like an accurate representation of how people actually act and think. In real life, there are no delightfully evil people. There are just mostly good people who do things that hurt others. It's never done with a purpose to hurt, but usually out of lust, fear, anger and other momentary passions. This movie does a great job of showing that.
It don't think it was about a happy ending, it was about being real. Have you observed actual couples where one person cheats once? If the person is truly contrite the other person takes them back a majority of the time. When you add in that she was having his child, and he showed that he was willing to suffer however long it took to get into her good graces, it's almost a lock that any "real" person in that situation would have given him another chance. After all, she didn't stop loving him and wanting to marry him, she just lost confidence in him.
Originally posted by: torpid
I agree with your interpretation Special K and that is one of the major reasons why I did not like the movie. It did not go far enough either way towards likeable characters or delightfully evil characters. If it had been closer to Closer I might have enjoyed it more. Felt like there were too many punches pulled, but still enough punches to warrant a domestic abuse charge in court.
I guess it's a matter of taste. Most people like this movie because it feels like an accurate representation of how people actually act and think. In real life, there are no delightfully evil people. There are just mostly good people who do things that hurt others. It's never done with a purpose to hurt, but usually out of lust, fear, anger and other momentary passions. This movie does a great job of showing that.
Originally posted by: Special K
*** WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD ***
I thought it was pretty lame that she took him back in the end after what he did. It seems most directors just can't make a movie without a happy ending.
Yeah I know we don't actually *know* that she took him back, but I think it was implied by the ending. She started out ignoring him, then gradually she started acknowledging that he was there, then she started leaving him food, and finally she let him back in. I guess you could argue that maybe she ended up not taking him back, but that's how I interpreted it. What do you think?
*** END SPOILERS ***
It don't think it was about a happy ending, it was about being real. Have you observed actual couples where one person cheats once? If the person is truly contrite the other person takes them back a majority of the time. When you add in that she was having his child, and he showed that he was willing to suffer however long it took to get into her good graces, it's almost a lock that any "real" person in that situation would have given him another chance. After all, she didn't stop loving him and wanting to marry him, she just lost confidence in him.