What Ending?

So are we to assume that the moral of the story is just that, morals? That the male gigolo would rather deliver groceries while the female inversely marries the owner of the NY Rangers? What? I fail to see the concept. Otherwise this film turns into a much terrible film in which basically we are left to infer that he, being a dreamer, is being "punished" whereas she, being the realist, lives wealthier ever after.

Again, perhaps the film is to be left incomplete. As to laugh in the face of both sad and happy endings because it was neither. As to mimic Aston's quip regarding Hollywood's impact on what popular culture assumes things should/would/could go. If you think about it, there really wasn't an ending at all. We were left only with the story thusfar of each character (including the protaginist) leading into the credits.

The frog scene is just ridiculous and has absolutely no place in the film. This is unequivocal. Unless, logically, like with the few jabs here and there at Los Angeles is meant to "symbolize" the nature of the city they're in. Either way, a waste of 7 minutes which could have rather been better spent dealing with the story.

The casting was perfect. Really. People have to understand this and one of the reasons why I give it kudos for not being scared to require said actors/actresses to do what they did to maintain it in all it's explicitness. During the first five minutes, the moment I seen him sit up with a Yassar Arafat keffiyeh-looking scarf in the desert that is Los Angeles, I almost turned the movie off. Glad I didn't because it has some witty proverbs here and there. Surprising little film. Just wish it was actually that, because most films have endings.

Enjoy movies, critique life