1. How they get together. Ok they are at a Cubs-Sox game and she basically says NO to go out for a drink with him. Then out of no where they are living together.
2. She basically tells her friend(or sister I think) that she didnt wanna break up with him. But wasnt she basically TRYING to get back with him? by bringing guys over, walking around naked, etc? Then when Vince makes the dinner and wants to talk to her, she says she doesnt feel anything.
3. The ending, I hate when movies leave you thinking. I thought they would get back together, but in the end they don't. Why did she change her mind, didnt she want him back? Plus going by the end you can kind of know that they dont get back together in the future, they both grew up and grew apart and are doing different things
Wow alot of stuff that doesnt make sense, anyone have any answers?
As far as the 1st question goes, my thoughts on it are that he was a charming and charasmatic guy and that's how he 'got' her. Remember when he totally impressed one of her dates, the young, good looking lawyer?? The guy couldn't stop talking about how great her roommate and she said "I can't do this" and got out of the cab, she had probably felt the same way about him in the beginning, kwim?
The other 2 I don't really have any answers to. Maybe in the end it was just a little too late and she needed to move on? Maybe they just weren't meant to be?? Or, maybe it just wasn't the 'right' time for them and they had to get some distance to even remember why they had got together in the 1st place and be able to appreciate eachother...
1.) They got together via the magic of the montage! It's assumed. In the various clips they show stages of a relationship, holidays, leisure time, social time with friends, family time, etc. It's a very unique and effective approach and denotes a sense of history quite quickly.
2.) She's trying to get him to come to her and admit that he was the one who made a mistake. This happens is basically every relationship that goes sour. Games are played to make the other come to, and Gary is treating it as most guys do: games that don't really hurt people but are about winning. When he sees Brooke cry and he talks to Johnny O, he realizes it's not for games and he's about to lose the girl he loves; thus, he confronts her with dinner and his epiphany concerning relationships (the epiphany she wanted him to have) "It's not about doing things you love to do always, but it is about doing things with the person you love."
Unfortunately, it was also a breaking point for Brooke. There comes a time when you've been dumped (as really, she was playing the role of the dumpee) that you become emotionally numb. At Gary's dinner, Brooke was at that point. There becomes too much history, too many bad things to be easily washed over and work through. Not to mention even if you could, most people that hit that point flat don't want to be in a real relationship. They want a new beginning, with someone new, that they can treat as a casual thing. She had her new beginning concerning her job and travel, but Gary wasn't new. Simple as that, she couldn't do the beginning again, much as she probably wanted. She knew where it would head.
3.) You hate when movies leave you thinking? I can understand wanting closure, but in terms of the ending, this movie is very "European" in that it ends in a realistic manner. Gary learned a better way for relationships to work and to less self-centered and take responsibility at work and in his life. Brooke seemed to be less concerned with details and a nicer person in general.
I enjoyed the movie, not by best by any means, and an odd fit, but it is a fairly unique movie. Very sad, very depressing. If I have any criticisms, they didn't seem to develope the Brooke character at all. They also seemed to try to put too much into the Johnny O character. He should've either been a jerk or
For the ending, I think it was satisfactory. There was definite chemistry between them, as well as planned meetings (her coming by his tourboat, them saying they had lots to talk about). It really could've gone two ways: they got back together...or they never really talked to each other again.
I watched it the first time just after moving out of the apartment my girlfriend and I had shared, and it hit a little close to home for both myself and my date. It made me think about past relationships, and go over what I had actually taken to heart, whereas what I should have taken from it. I think that was the real point of the movie.
For the third question, u can take the movie how u want to...like myself, some assumed the re-aquintance meant they would re-gain their relationship all over again...on better levels, especially now that they had a chance to diminish the intensity of their flaws. I think the ending isn't when the movie goes off, but rather what u believe happeneds afterward.
Wow, great points. In the end when Gary and Brooke run in to one another, it alluded to me that they both realize that they get along much better as friends, than in a romantic relationship. It hinted that if nothing else, the respect was there (for each other).
But I saw the movie was being really realistic because many of us tolerate a lot from the ones that we love and then one day a fuse blows and the faults are exposed... even the ones each person didn't realize was there or was too selfish to care about. Johnny O helped Gary have an epiphany about how he is viewed by his friends... Johnny eloquently and lovingly explained to Gary that he's just a selfish dude, but their problem (friends, Brooke, family) was that they all loved him so much, that they never brought it to his attention, as Johnny O explained because they all accepted that he was just being "Gary."
At some point, we all need to check ourselves because it's really easy to blame the other person... in this movie, as tolerant as Brooke was for a long time, she was an enabler to Gary's selfishness ("I lay out your clothes like a 4 year old," I went to a Notre Dame game that wasn't fun for me," )etc... yet he didn't return the same.
It just proves that in order to maintain the things and people that we love, we have to give back the same in equal (subjective) portions as much as we can.
There is one thing that really makes this movie unrealistic. Why did they buy the condo, if they weren't 100% the relationship would last? I could see them living together in an apartment. If the relationship hits the crapper, they could finish up the lease for the year or someone could move out and someone else could come in. I found that to be really annoying.
I also found it annoying that Brooke didn't come clean and admit that she was playing games with him. If she would have talked, he might have changed and then they wouldn't have broken up.
I think they thought they were going to be together forever. The photos (after they meet)show them going through all of the dating stages but since the movie was not about them dating it went fast.
I think the movie has a good lesson for people. If you are not happy then you have to take steps to make yourself happy. You know, like tell your partner what you need and no game playing because what you may be saying your partner may not be getting it. He definitly wasn't.
Also, being in a relationship does not mean giving up who you are but as we get older and we attempt to share our life with someone we have to think about how our actions affect other people. I cringed during the dinner party scene when she was begging for help and he was playing video games - then the bell rings and he goes to take a shower. How selfish can you be - life takes effort.
They had the condo because it was equity and was a positive for the tourism business. There was a conversation between the 3 brothers about them selling the condo and how it was going to affect their plans of getting boats and planes...
People get into those situations all the time. It's not at all unrealistic. The only thing that prevents more people from buying a place together before they really should is credit rating/score. A lot of people just can't buy a place because of their past, so they end up renting for YEARS.
Well as for number 3, I have been in relationships where, whoever broke it off, I was so "in love" and would try anything to get them back, but after I would give up on the relationship, and REALLY not care anymore (not PRETEND to not care) they came back in basically my previous position where they would try anything to make it work. By that time, even though I could remember the strong feelings, it would surprise even me that I had no desire to get back together anymore. I think after she gave so much and he basically could not have cared less, she truly lost her strong feelings for him. Sad, but it happens every day.
The movie don't make sense? Do you know any women in real life? Well I know some of them and they don't make sense so the movie is pretty realistic to me... Of course that doesn't necessarely make it a good movie...
who actually cares what happened in the story? There are two types of movies:
1/ Movies that exist for the sake of telling a great story, an epic tale, a cute tale, something that is interesting
2/ Movies that exist to create situations, funny ones, angry ones, acting pieces, etc...
This movie was a number 2. The story was irrelevant. The movie has this line in it:
"You're possibly going to get arrested,"
"For what? For being awesome?"
---
that's enough for me, for what it was; there were a couple more lines but that's it. It's no shaun of the dead, it's no wedding crashers, and it's certainly no Baseketball... and it's no Big Lebowski... or Croupier...
It is what it is, and although Jennifer Aniston is for some reason better at playing a character who is constantly dishonest, she's still struggling to keep up with Vaugn for the entire film. Maybe if the girl out of Meet Joe Black had been in this film then it would have been better, there might have been some real chemistry between the actors, because it would have actually been 2 actors instead of one actor and a lesbian whose father bought her a career.
Vaughn and Aniston did, in fact, have a relationship after The Breakup. Maybe she struggled to keep up in that situation too, but I see no reason to diss her as some type of dishonest female who is somehow inferior to Vaughn.
And the lesbian comment; Wow, I don't know where to start. First of all, you reel that off like it is some type of insult, which it isn't. Second of all, is there any factual backing behind your comment? Is she a lesbian? She's been married and has had a series of post-Pitt heterosexual relationships to my, admittedly tabloid informed, knowledge base.
I've watched Aniston in a couple of memorable films. She was in Office Space, for Gods sakes. That alone solidifies her as a warped cult-driven icon.
That she gave a wonderfully inspired, though be it, low key tour de force performance in The Good Girl only solidifies her legacy.
I don't know about her father and whether he bought her career. But Joe Kennedy LITERALLY bought the presidency for JFK, and I don't see you begrudging him or his brothers so effortlessly.
Vaughn and Aniston did, in fact, have a relationship after The Breakup. Maybe she struggled to keep up in that situation too, but I see no reason to diss her as some type of dishonest female who is somehow inferior to Vaughn.
ummmmm... no they didn't.
And the lesbian comment; Wow, I don't know where to start. First of all, you reel that off like it is some type of insult, which it isn't. Second of all, is there any factual backing behind your comment? Is she a lesbian? She's been married and has had a series of post-Pitt heterosexual relationships to my, admittedly tabloid informed, knowledge base.
I never said it was an insult. She has fake heterosexual relationships promoted in the media because they don't think it's marketable to have an openly gay woman play a straight woman in films. This is pretty standard practice.
I've watched Aniston in a couple of memorable films. She was in Office Space, for Gods sakes. That alone solidifies her as a warped cult-driven icon.
That she gave a wonderfully inspired, though be it, low key tour de force performance in The Good Girl only solidifies her legacy.
She's awful in Office Space, which is not a good film. And I haven't heard of The Good Girl, but considering she's consistently bad in every film and tv show she's ever been in I very much doubt she delivered a 'tour de force' performance.
I don't know about her father and whether he bought her career. But Joe Kennedy LITERALLY bought the presidency for JFK, and I don't see you begrudging him or his brothers so effortlessly.
Can you figuratively buy someone a presidency? "There goes old Michael, buying his wife the presidency, the old fool!" You didn't need to say "LITERALLY."
And what do you mean you don't see me begrudging the Kennedys? Are they in this film? Why would I mention the Kennedys at all?