This can wait until you watch it on your TV, no sense burning limited gas supplies to go out.

Is this really worth killing our planet?

Heh, most people can never come to grips with the idea that most break-ups occur between two human beings, and not one monster(the other person) and one
saint(yourself). There are certainly times when one person proves to be a total scumbag, but most of the time people are just incompatible or incapable of moving past their personal baggage. It's not shocking if the story-teller couldn't resist slamming his ex-by-proxy. People know things in their head long before they ever feel it in their heart, and this is probably a reflection of that.

Or, maybe a touching, lite moment doesn't make for a strong comedic finish, while genital herpes does.

I also appreciated the two decent people angle -- especially the part where you discover that she really was trying harder than he was. But she still was cheating on him with a dirt bag. Cheating is bad. Cheating with a dirtbag is unforgivable.

I also thought the coda was hilarious, and not necessarily at her expense. I'm sure her character was happy to be starring in a TV show with Jason Bateman. I'm sure she'd rather be a movie star, but come on, being a tv star is not failure.

The movie gets points for explaining why the girl might like the guy -- she was similarly humiliated by a celebrity and feels a kinship to him. That's more than most movies. Isn't that one of Stanley Cavell's principles, that the two people in the story must be together?

I thought it was the best paced comedy I can remember. It was really cracking.

Paul Rudd is the best.

Typo: Jason Segel

Woah! Did we see the same movie?

It was never clear at all what their relationship was like, only that Sarah had started seeing someone else, in the way that sort of generally does happen when people are unhappy.

As to all the bad stuff that happens, it was a reflection of Sarah's attempt to get back with Peter, because of problems with her other boyfriend, and jealousy at seeing Peter with another woman. It's pretty ill-considered, and given that comedy is often about cruelty, pretty understandable.

Thanks for the spoilers, actually; I have trouble even watching movie bad guys get humiliated, much less a character with some redeeming qualities. I'm not a huge fan of Apatow, and I think his treatment of relationships may be nuanced, but his treatment of women themselves much less so. Now I can skip it guilt-free.

Re Apatow

All of his stories, some of which I've liked (40 Year Old Virgin) and others not so much (Superbad), are about average white guys with beautiful girls who would frankly be outside of their league in real life. There's a huge market for this. But, for those of us who aren't vested in the fantasy of being an average white guy feeling dissed by the beatiful girl- it's kind of the same character arc, slightly tweaked story. In a way, it's like watching Will Ferrell. You know what you are going to get because it's the same character, different film. I suppose I am complaining about the commoditization of movies. Afterall, it's not like Tyler Perry and others don't also do this. It's just as someone who likes movies a lot- and thought 40 Year Old Virgin was brilliant because it was the first time I had seen him do this character- it's a bit well "wait to see it on DVD" because I suspect I am really not going to experience anything new. It's like this nice guy at work said- "It maybe me a overweight average guy from Long Island feel like I could have a chance at the girl too." Nothing wrong with that. Nothing must see about it either.

Did you really need two posts on this movie? And do I really need to go see it? I somehow doubt it. you should stay away from culture criticism. your brand of it is distinctly unapealling.

Mmmm, work on your salesmanship. A review of "it's funny, go see it" and "long specific description of a scene that is morally-disturbing, unrealistic, breaking from the rest of the movie, unfunny, and navel-gazing on behalf of the creator" really convinces me NOT to see it.

If we're going to assume that Sarah is left with herpes, then we have to assume that Peter and Rachel have herpes as well.

Just like in that Coolio video "Too Hot."

I agree, the movie wasn't very original, but it's the energy and the jokes that really made the movie. Dracula Rock Opera? That was the most brilliant thing I've seen in film all year lol. "It's getting harder and harder.... to live." "Die........I can't"

I don't think his GF was made out to be the complete villian either. Towards the end you did really start to see her as somewhat vein and self-centered, but it wasn't like you didn't see his worse personality traits as well. A movie doesn't have to be very original to be good, just like a good album doesn't. Sometimes it's the nostalgia that makes it so good :)

Actually two points--

a) No it doesn't have to be original, but that's not endorsement for must see such that one needs to write up two posts on the same subject (and the fact the name Stoller is the director, of course, has nothing to do with that).

b) Nostaligic? I suppose in a King of Queens or other sit coms with unattractive husbands, and good looking wives who are smart and cultured sort of way.