MovieChat Forums > Friends with Kids (2012) Discussion > How about the final piece of dialogue in...

How about the final piece of dialogue in the movie?


"Please, I'm begging you, just let me *beep* the *beep* out of you. Whaddia say?"
"*beep* the *beep* out of me!"

Lolasaurus-Rex.

reply

Yeah, I alluded to this in another post. And it is kinda a spoiler.

I was greatly unsettled when he started talking like this. Not because he is a man with a caveman mentality. But because of her reaction. It had you thinking right up until the end that she might still reject him. The confused look on her face was on the cusp of being either disgust or joy while he was saying all this.

Did it seem out of character for the two of them? A bit. They both spend the whole movie trying to be the rational breeding pair. So for him to go all testosterone and vulgar, and for her to go all weak and needy, just seemed a tad false. Although maybe that was Westfeldt's point: you can't try to reduce procreation and parenting to logical procedures because you are still fundamentally animals, albeit in a bizarre stereotypically sense. Even though it was the "happy" conclusion, it wasn't altogether pleasant.

I might have been more satisfied if she rejected him for good. It was the type of movie with poignant ambiguity. And I appreciated that about it.

reply

[deleted]

I think your latter conclusion was most accurate. You could tell leading up to the big "breakup" scene that his lack of physical attraction to her was hurtful, almost cruel. His speech at the dinner party was beautiful, so she mistakenly thought that he matured enough to accept that they were each other's life partner. I was much more bothered by her stereotypical Baby's Mama response of using the child to punish the Baby's Daddy because he rejected her. Cutting herself emotionally off from him was understandable. However, the act of moving out of their common building, which optimized the co-parenting situation, was cruel and petty. He was always a good father. She had trouble believing his initial confession because she thought he was saying what she wanted to hear in order to make her less rigid. Like if he were compromising himself, she would always worry about whether he would leave her for someone else or screw around. By declaring himself so crudely, he was declaring that his love for her was complete and not compartmentalized. It wouldn't be a romantic comedy if she definitively rejected him because he was immature, but I think the message that we should love our partners as complete three dimensional beings is a good one.

I should also note that he was quite vulgar throughout the movie, as he frequently and bluntly discussed her lady parts.

reply

I didn't think she was moving out to be cruel and petty, rather because she couldn't imagine living that close to him anymore, especially now living with Barbie, after pouring her heart out to him and being rejected.

reply

True but isn't it better for her son to be near his father? I feel like she was putting her own wants ahead of what was best for their child, and that's not okay when you're a parent.

reply

YESSSSS! OMG, yes to this! When she left their apartment building, all I could think was, "So very not cool to use his child against him like this." I just recently watched another TV show where one of the main female characters did that, and it disgusts me. (Not to mention I have a family member who did this to her boyfriend.) Fine, you're upset with this person. He is still the father of your child, and it is still in your child's best interest to be near his father.

I guess the argument could be made that the child wouldn't thrive in an environment where his mom was a complete emotional wreck due to her proximity to a man she loves who rejected her, but I think the child's interests should be put ahead of your own when you're a parent.

reply

you can't try to reduce procreation and parenting to logical procedures because you are still fundamentally animals, albeit in a bizarre stereotypically sense.


We are only animals if we allow ourselves to be. What separates us from the animals is our ability to choose not to act like them. Merely excusing one's selfish behavior by saying, "ah, we're just animals" is simply a sign of immaturity in a human - sadly, a level of immaturity that has risen to engulf our generation.

reply

cartwheelsforchrist writes:
"We are only animals if we allow ourselves to be."

Yes.

The point of that final scene, I think, was that love and kids are kinda messy.

And the vulgarity was to off set the stilted way they made Joe.


"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."

reply

This bothered me the most. I really enjoyed the movie but this was a TERRIBLE way to end the film. It was almost an attempt at funny shock humor and came off really dirty and forced. Not the way a film like this should have ended.

reply

I don't think it was even meant to be funny. I feel like I'm some surly curmudgeon for saying it, but my girlfriend and I actually found that last scene crass, vulgar, and even a bit rapey-sounding. If the film had actually ended when she asked him to leave, even that would have been a better ending.

I genuinely think Westfeldt painted the story into a corner and couldn't get it out. Regardless, this is the second time I've watched a movie blow it in the last line (the other being Wanted, but that movie was already in need of catching a bullet ten minutes in to begin with).

reply

The worst last line in romcom I have ever seen-heard! I mean, that is not the way you prove that you're into someone, except literally.

reply

The whole film was vulgar trash, so why should the ending have been any different? It appears that what passes for romance in a 21st century Hollywood romcom is a guy telling his beloved that he wants to *beep* the sh*t" out of her.

Why does every movie today have to be so crude? Men walking out of the bathroom discussing the size and smell of their craps, women discussing their stretched-out vaginas after birth.....it's all so infantile and nasty. Thank God that the comedies of the 1930's and '40's are available on DVD and on Turner. I'd infinitely rather watch the wit and sophistication of "Ninotchka" for the hundredth time than garbage like "Friends With Kids" twice.

reply

I can't believe it ended like this! I would be totally turned off by someone using those words. This ending just ruined the movie for me.

reply

Yes - cringey. It just underscored that Jason was a man-child. I honestly don’t know what Julie saw in him.

reply

I think it's a fairly realistic depiction of every day dialog among friends. Generational gap maybe? If anything, there is less profanity in modern film dialog compared to actual every day life.

reply

Yes, it was slightly shocking when he went all vulgar at the end, but it definitely wasn’t out of character, and it seemed to be proving several points. The one that most stood out to me was that romance isn’t always what you think. In Adam’s little monologue he mentions that they had the romance all along, it just wasn’t the kind they thought they needed. It’s especially interesting when juxtaposed against jon and kristen’s relationship, showing that perhaps a weird romance is in fact superior.

Jae mentioned that the animalistic urgency was probably necessary for Jennifer to hear, because she was so hurt when Adam said he wasn’t attracted to her at the dinner, and Otkon’s comment makes sense as well: you can't try to reduce procreation and parenting to logical procedures because you are still fundamentally animals, albeit in a bizarre stereotypically sense. Even though it was the "happy" conclusion, it wasn't altogether pleasant.

I wouldn’t call this film a romcom, and it wasn’t what I was hoping for, but it raises interesting points.

reply

This is how people talk in my world. I found it pretty realistic, compared to a drawn out I'm so in love with you speech. Didn't even register with me as odd really.

reply

Same here. I liked it.

reply

[deleted]

I liked the ending, thought it quite funny. She obviously had a physical attraction to Adam Scott from the beginning so his final lines were a funny way to show that he now had the same feelings.

reply

I really enjoyed this film and for the most part it rang true - except for these ending lines. They really seemed jarring to me but not because they were vulgar - we are hardly talking about Austen here.
No, the reason they seemed odd and out of place is because it contradicted EVERYTHING that they had learned through the movie. Sex does not equal love and you can't show your love by f-king. Whatever you have in the bedroom can't solve the mundane, everyday realities of just being with the same person all the time. You can't just love the f-king, you have to love the person.
What I wanted him to say was something like:
'All this time I had thought that love was x, now I know it is really y and it was in front of me all along'.
Something like that.
Instead he seems to think that going the Ben and Missy path is going to be more convincing...??? I don't get it.

"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

reply

The last lines were no more clueless, tasteless, irritatingly 'cutesy vulgar', or asinine than the entire script preceding it. This film helps to prove just how low standards have gone in terms of what people expect from movies now, and what sort of people are supposedly "realistic" characters. People that act and think like the two protagonists in this movie make me embarrassed to be a member of their generation. They're arrogant, stuffy, insecure ingrates. The fact that they're supposed to be relatable (and apparently are to some) is just depressing.

reply

It's no more forced gross-out/shock humor than the final line in Bucky Larson.

reply

[deleted]