I understand being upset with him but they kind of left it on a bad note and never went back to it.
We just end the movie thinking they never want to see Ruffalo's character again?
I don't understand that.
Just finished it last night and it kinda bothered me too that they didn't bring more closure for Paul's character. However, he acted irresponsible and really had no clue as to the damage he could cause this family or his ability to see his biological kids. He didn't take the family seriously. Even going so far as telling Jules that "this isn't a mistake" and showing up at the house way too soon after the fact and smiling at Lazer through the window as if nothing had happened.
He was a good guy but just a bit self-serving. And it ended up being his downfall. I think I prefer this to the idea that there would be no consequences for his actions.
I would've preferred if the writer took a similar but possibly less harsh approach with Jules, possibly making her future relationship with Nic more ambiguous, but it was nice to see them back together.
While I have a problem with sperm donors who just donate sperm for money and don't care what happens to their biological kids, at least Ruffalo redeems himself. The kids should have been grateful that the father reciprocated to their overtures and made one of their moms have hetero feelings with their own father. I can understand why the butch lesbian Benning character felt threatened. Eventually though, the bisexual Moore character still ended up with her and not the guy when it could have been so easy for Moore to do so.
Benning should have forgiven Ruffalo's character instead of contributing to the negative vibe in their kids towards a man they established some kind of parental contact with.
The whole point is that the kids were grateful and happy that Paul responded to their reaching out, and they were starting to build relationships with him--and then he turned the family upside-down by participating in an affair with one of their moms. You honestly think that the kids should have just forgiven Paul (a man they were starting to look up to as a father) for that? And that the woman who got cheated on should just forgive the guy who could have broken up her family? Let's not forget that Nic and Paul were starting to form a friendship too, and that she was finally starting to let him into their lives--and then she finds out how careless and selfish he actually was with his own kids/family.
Face it--Paul was flawed and made poor choices. Yes, it's apparently possible for male characters to be in the wrong! But I guess he should just be forgiven because he's a man, right? (I'm not even going to get into why the kids did not need to be grateful that Paul 'made Jules have hetero feelings for him'; or why you think it would have been better and 'easy' for Jules to end up with a man.)
Yep, the kids should be happy that their birth parents got together. If i had two lesbian parents, I would not mind if my birth father got together with my birth mother occasionally. Why does a lesbian relationship have to follow the same outdated norms of a heterosexual marriage?
shareLol well done sir.
shareI think Rufallo got what he deserved, for the part we got to see. I would have prefered to get more closure, but in the narrow space of time in which the film plays I honestly don't think it would have been possible.
As to the emotional part of your story, it's hard to prevent encounters with prejudice from leaving you bitter. But asking what happens with one of the principal characters of the movie isn't so weird.
Sure, Rufallo was careless and irresponsible. I thought it was kind of ironic that he tells his friend-with-benefits that he doesn't want to be that irresponsible 50 year old guy, when he's pretty much exactly that.
At the same time, he's human. He is suddenly confronted with his children and his attraction to their mother. He gets ideas in his head that he shouldn't have, I guess he gets lost in the situation and seriously misjudges it. But where it speaks for the mother that she sticks with her family, I think it speaks for him that he stops his flings. They're both sincere, they ultimately just want very different things.
So while he deserves what he gets in the movie, as what he has done is irresponsible and there is no reason why both should not do penance, I don't think he is beyond redemption. I'm assuming had the movie been twice as long, we'd have seen that too.
I think it's just bad writing. He's made out to be the villain of the story to create some "drama". Moore's character is is if anyone to blame. It could be argued but the affair was just so unnecessary. It was such a terrible piece of writing - it just sucked - ruined the entire movie.
I think at the end of the day the writers came up with the concept, a decent one at at, but couldn't come up with anything creative so they just coped out and made an unnecessary villain
Overall, the movie sucked - 3/10
Yeah, the affair subplot was garbage.
shareI felt like there needed to be one more scene with Paul, to give him some sort of denouement. The last we see of him, he simply throws his helmet against his motorbike. Maybe another scene in which there is a suggestion that he's prepared to move on and start a family of his own, perhaps with the black chick?
shareDefinetly needed some kind of closure for him.
If I never meet you in this life, let me feel the lack
I was really surprised that he was basically put into a father type role... and then everyone dumped him and he lost relationships with what were basically his kids.
It was just as much Julianne Moore's fault, but really seemed like the dad in the story was just tossed aside. Odd, and I think a bit of a flaw in the story.
The movie spent all this time building up his character, and then just tossed it away oddly.
Because he's taking over and meddling in the family.
Not only that, but he partook in a relation he knew for a fact to be cheating.
Just all around terrible person. (Not to absolve wholly anyone else involved.)
Seems like lazy writing to me. Like others have said on here, Paul is mostly a writing tool to create drama but by using him that way they are responsible for his ending as well. I feel like the writer didn't care to fulfill his story because she isn't interested in it and she is only concerned about what is relevant to her which is the lesbian relationship.
Also Jules was just as guilty as Paul. I don't see why there is this perception that only Paul was at fault with the affair. Clearly space and time were needed to heal those wounds but Paul was brought into their lives because the kids sought him out not because he just showed up wanting to wreak havoc. I don't see him being an all around terrible person. I see him as having flaws just like Nic and Jules and everyone else for that matter.
I think the point of the entire movie is that Human Beings are not meant to be monogamous. Whether we are gay, straight, or somewhere in between, monogamy is not a natural thing. It's a choice and when you make that choice it takes a lot of hard work to maintain it and keep it strong.
I think that was the focus of the movie. That a gay couple experiences the same problems straight couples experience.
Good movie.
I just wish more closure for Paul was added but that is what my imagination is for.
Seems like lesbian man-hating writing.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
That is what happens with affairs. The adulterous spouse and non-spouse share equal blame. But, the couple, if they decide the relationship is important enough to them both, tries to heal from the trauma and the non-spouse is banished. The couple has "a lot of skin in the game" with many years of creating a life together, not so with the non-spouse. Infidelity creates a high price to pay for everyone, unfairly so for the innocent spouse.
shareHe was? I came away with the impression that Nic was a neurotic, narcissistic, manipulative, insecure bitch, and really the antagonist in this picture. I felt like all the anger and frustration in the movie was sourced in her insecurity and buried self-loathing. And how she spread it to her kids like a contagion. I never saw the Paul character in a dim light at all. If anything, I read this movie as a confession, as a subconscious indictment of modern lesbianism.
I have a sister who's pretty much a carbon copy of the Benning character and I can see how the whole psychology works. It all comes from having a very sick, narcissistic father who abused her to the point where she hated men in general.