We were in the mood for something light and irreverent, and we’ve liked Jason Segel and Ed Helms enough to give this little indy a shot. Well, this flick is the perfect example of why these stories are just better executed in a series format on tv.
I really didn’t like the ending. It was a total cop-out and was completely at odds with what I felt was the underlying theme: that there is no devine plan for anyone, that you have to create your own present, and that if you spend your life waiting for something to happen, life will pass you by. Well, the director manages to completely invalidate all that work (the basketball mugging, the van, the fake admirer, etc) by making a hackneyed finale where everyone makes an improbable appearance in the right place at the right time as if by magic. Even more annoying than Segel’s water rescue is Ed Helm’s sudden patched relationship. There was no arc on this one… he goes from selfish and petulant and tone deaf… to smooching his gal, as if an hour of character development had been cut out of the film. So what is the theme here, then? That movies have to invalidate their own premises to give an audience a happy ending? That something can be fixed regardless how flawed and broken it is by just wishing it was so?
I can’t help but feel these situations are played out so much better in a series like Mad Men or even How I met Your Mother… where time and episodes can carry over, where the arc isn’t so sudden, where flaws and redemption can play out in ways that are more believable. It further reinforces my feeling that film, in this format, is playing out. Or maybe this was just a really crap film.