Lions Gate Films | Release Date: July 15, 2005
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 24 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
16
Mixed:
4
Negative:
4
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
SeanJ.Dec 11, 2006
Casting Maggie Gyllenhaal as a calculating young skank didn't ring true - she's too old for the role, cavorting around with young 20-somethings. Her singing performance at the end as a sort of character redemption (typical Casting Maggie Gyllenhaal as a calculating young skank didn't ring true - she's too old for the role, cavorting around with young 20-somethings. Her singing performance at the end as a sort of character redemption (typical Hollywood Happy Ending!) made me want to slap the screenwriter/director. Kudrow's character was irritating and unrealistic, except the actress letting her age/wrinkles show through (minimal Botox - wow). Her meltdown at the beginning/ending made you feel cheated, like "oh come on heifer! Will you get a grip". The two son's featured in the film were zero-dimensional. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RobertC.Jul 7, 2006
Got off to a slow start and I almost gave up on it, but the quirky characters and raw emotions won me over. Lisa Kudrow was very good. Maggie Gyllenhaal was amazing as usual and I really enjoyed her version of "Don't go Changin'" Got off to a slow start and I almost gave up on it, but the quirky characters and raw emotions won me over. Lisa Kudrow was very good. Maggie Gyllenhaal was amazing as usual and I really enjoyed her version of "Don't go Changin'" at the end. I found the occasinal split screen narrative distracting, but it was a wothwhile movie experience for me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AmurabiM.Jun 26, 2006
"This is a comedy. Sort of" says one of the multiple title cards, displayed in this film. The title cards can work as a distraction, right, but also can show a lack of talent of Roos direction. Yes, his script is witty, smart and talented, "This is a comedy. Sort of" says one of the multiple title cards, displayed in this film. The title cards can work as a distraction, right, but also can show a lack of talent of Roos direction. Yes, his script is witty, smart and talented, with a great mix of tragedy and comedy (that´s the reason which that title card proves that, at least, this film is earnest) but you have to read those, to believe and find a justification fot the acts of the characters . With terrific performances (Maggie Gyllenhaal is a goddess from the contemporary american cinema) and superb storylines (that looks realistic, plausible and believable), "Happy Endings" could be a masterpiece if something must have not been forget: passion. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PeterJ.May 9, 2006
I am shocked at all of the good scores this movie has received. Besides seeing Phoebe's nipple, I was bored out of my mind watching this movie. It was so bad my wife made me turn it off. Good thing I did, because then we watched I am shocked at all of the good scores this movie has received. Besides seeing Phoebe's nipple, I was bored out of my mind watching this movie. It was so bad my wife made me turn it off. Good thing I did, because then we watched Cinderella Man, which was a great movie! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
[Anonymous]Mar 1, 2006
Love multiple-intertwined story movies if they get get at least a liitle depth. In comparison Crash may have been famously cast and well-acted but it was far too flitting / characters left under-developed. This was well explored and albeit Love multiple-intertwined story movies if they get get at least a liitle depth. In comparison Crash may have been famously cast and well-acted but it was far too flitting / characters left under-developed. This was well explored and albeit simply (through the text) well connected. The characters were less 2-dimensional, and thank goodness humorous and less depressing (i.e. more like Pulp). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
larrya.Dec 30, 2005
Great fun. I was hoping the movie would last a hour longer. A different type of movie that woked out very well. I was happy I watched it on DVD so could replay and enjoy parts a second time! Makes me happy a film can entertain so well Great fun. I was hoping the movie would last a hour longer. A different type of movie that woked out very well. I was happy I watched it on DVD so could replay and enjoy parts a second time! Makes me happy a film can entertain so well without a zillion dollar budget! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ArizonaRexDec 29, 2005
So I loved The Opposite of Sex and I expected this one to be really similar, if not irritatingly the same. But it wasn't. I didn't really consider this a comedy or a dramedy. It was abstract and sad and moving. Don Roos, whether So I loved The Opposite of Sex and I expected this one to be really similar, if not irritatingly the same. But it wasn't. I didn't really consider this a comedy or a dramedy. It was abstract and sad and moving. Don Roos, whether intentionally or not, moved me with this film. With chaos and beauty, he amazed me. The performances were great, the script was amazing. This movie was beautiful and caught we way off guard. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
SamWDec 12, 2005
The Opposite of Sex is one of my all-time favorite movies because Don Roos succeeds so masterfully at presenting unlikable characters and making them eminently likable. Happy Endings fails utterly in this respect. The characters start out The Opposite of Sex is one of my all-time favorite movies because Don Roos succeeds so masterfully at presenting unlikable characters and making them eminently likable. Happy Endings fails utterly in this respect. The characters start out unlikable and remain that way throughout the movie. The acting is great, but not enough to save this movie from being a festival of misery and depression. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ChadS.Sep 12, 2005
Don Roos uses title cards as a replacement for a voice-over, which are usually done in the first-person, but his commentaries are written in third-person, and had they been narrated, "Happy Endings" might've resembled Rebecca Don Roos uses title cards as a replacement for a voice-over, which are usually done in the first-person, but his commentaries are written in third-person, and had they been narrated, "Happy Endings" might've resembled Rebecca Miller's "Personal Velocity". Roos gives the moviegoer a choice; you can either read the fine print, or ignore the added information without any fatal hinderance to your understanding of the narrative. By ignoring the title cards, the characters have more ambiguity. But if you read silently to yourself, you're participating in the film. You're the narrator. Roos' experiment might be unnecessary(unnecessary because he steals some of the spotlight from the great Maggie Gyllenhaal, the underrated Lisa Kudrow, and the unbeknownst Tom Arnold), but the conceit works if you have a hypothesis for its justification. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful