Happy Endings (2005) User Reviews (83)

Multi-Layered Deceptions in LA-Based Ennui Makes for a Smart, Meandering Hodgepodge

[EUyeshima · 7/10 · 23 January 2006]

Filmmaker Don Roos brings a unique perspective to his films, and this omnibus 2005 film exemplifies his idiosyncratic style quite well. Even though it doesn't work in its entirety, it has a great ensemble cast and some really sharp observations about a loosely connected group of people who have in common a certain disassociation with the inner truths in their lives. In fact, the deceptive nature of the characters is the movie's leitmotif, and Roos crosscuts their interactions with helpful title cards that often explain their inner motivations for their actions.

There are three basic stories that constitute the film, which recalls the multi-layered, somewhat enervated spirit of Robert Altman's "Short Cuts" especially given the LA-based ennui both films portray with accuracy. The first story deals with step-siblings Mamie, who as a teenager, had a one-night stand with her stepbrother Charley. Years later, Mamie is an abortion clinic worker, while Charley, gay and partnered contently with Gil for five years, runs their long-dead parents' last remaining restaurant. Both siblings have their own storyline - Mamie meets Nicky, a grungy filmmaker who wants her to participate in a film about meeting someone from her past. However, she convinces Nicky to make another film entirely about her intermittent lover Javier's massage practice.

The second story revolves around Charley's obsession with the paternity of a son which their lesbian best friends have just conceived. This leads to unexpected revelations that backfire on Charley. The third story focuses on Otis, a closeted teenage drummer who works at Charley's restaurant. Otis meets Jude, a vagabond singer who favors Billy Joel ballads and beds Otis in order to have a place to crash. Once established in the palatial home, she also attaches herself to Otis's divorced father Frank. It all sounds complicated and sometimes feels quite erratic, but Roos makes the film intriguing to watch.

The acting certainly helps. As Mamie, Lisa Kudrow again shows how she can use her somewhat flaky persona in an arresting way that can be funny and heartbreaking. Steve Coogan effectively brings out Charley's neuroses, while Jesse Bradford is convincingly suspect as Nicky. The underutilized Laura Dern doesn't really have much to do as one-half of the lesbian couple (Sarah Clarke is the other half), while Bobby Cannavale gamely brings out the swarthy gamesmanship of Javier. Jason Ritter (the look-alike son of the late John Ritter) plays Otis with the right amount of confusion and anxiety. As the bonhomous Jude, Maggie Gyllenhaal (Jake's sister) gives a shrewd performance that never borders on the obvious, while Tom Arnold surprises with a subtle turn as the comparatively innocent Frank.

The DVD has an alternate commentary track with Roos, Kudrow and cinematographer Clark Mathis, as well as ten deleted scenes of varying quality and three scenes that constitute the lacking gag reel. During the final film's lengthy 128-minute running time, there are scenes that seem to drift with no reason and character motivations that go unexplained. Regardless, the film is definitely worth seeing.

A guide to enjoying this movie...

[cwhyel · 7/10 · 20 November 2005]

This is worth renting. Not a classic but a distinct original with many commendable performances by a large cast of recognizable talent.

Now, keep in mind that this is a rambling soap opera crammed into roughly two hours. In order to keep pace, you'll need the following plan. First, get a nice cappuccino. Get your bathroom breaks out of the way, and put your phone on silent ring and maybe discourage visitors because if you blink or walk away from this for even a moment, you will miss something and it will be tantamount to the story.

This is very original though not too stylish. I don't know if everyone comes from this feeling better about the human condition or having enjoyed their time spent watching it but you need to be aware that this is an exercise in listening and paying attention, which will challenge many. If you fall into the category of "many," maybe this isn't for you.

If you like entertainment that takes you away from the formulaic layout and typical dialogue that you can see coming, this will not disappoint.

Enjoy and may you all have happy endings of your own-whatever they may be.

Too many unique vignettes causes overload on the "Happy Endings"

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 6/10 · 16 July 2009]

Vignettes are a tricky business. To make a film with more than three main stories to follow that interconnect and are unified in some significant way is a challenge. "Love, Actually" is one of the only recent films to successfully pull this off, using Christmas and love as a unifying factor. Don Roos' "Happy Endings" uses ... love? happiness? sexuality? infatuation? It's not clear, and making all the vignettes cross-connect with each other doesn't satisfy what we look for in these movies. Each vignette should essentially tell the same message in a different way. "Happy Endings" has several original concepts, but the connection is obscure and hard to draw.

Roos ("The Opposite of Sex") essentially tells three stories: First follows Mamie (Lisa Kudrow) and the documentary she helps aspiring filmmaker Nicky (Jesse Bradford) make about her masseuse/lover Javier (Bobby Cannavale) so that she can find out information Nicky has of the son she gave away at birth when she was 18. The second follows the father of that child, Charlie (Steve Coogan), who is now gay and convinced that his partner (David Sutcliffe) is the biological father of their lesbian friends' son, whom he donated sperm to once and it supposedly didn't work. Last is Jude (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a free spirit who meets Otis (Jason Ritter), a young man that works in Charlie's restaurant who is hiding his homosexuality from his rich father (Tom Arnold). Jude promises Otis that she won't say anything if he doesn't spoil her plan to become involved with his father for the money.

That mostly covers the labyrinthian complexity of "Happy Endings," which despite it's courage to choose such unique scenarios , doesn't seem to ever make clear sense. It's all quite interesting, as this is relationship drama we've never seen before, but there are a lot of emotions flying around and motivations that seem to lack sources. It probably all made sense in Roos' head, but it doesn't convert.

The acting talent isn't necessarily lacking either. This is the best performance I've ever seen Kudrow give in a film -- she reminds me of another Annette Bening. Gyllenhaal is also one of the more complex (in the intriguing way) characters and she draws the widest variety of emotions from the audience as she crosses a fine line between sincerity and deception. Although the characters are interesting, however, we mostly feel just apathy because the snippets we get of them are more puzzling than revealing.

Another unique technique that Roos employs is adding subtitles that give away little pieces of information about the characters as we watch them, whether it's what happens in the future to them or a secret they have. It's supposed to add a unique twist to what's being shown on screen, but it's hard enough to make sense of what's going on on screen as it is. It's not a bad idea, but it just saturates this film even more.

Watching vignettes interconnect is always entertaining and interesting, but "Happy Endings" is overstuffed and it creates a disconnect between the characters and the audience, which no amount of character interconnectedness can solve.

Friendships, secrets and lies; multi-chaptered comedy-drama with some standout performances...

[moonspinner55 · 6/10 · 14 April 2008]

Don Roos wrote and directed this lively, sometimes poignant, but not especially funny comedy-drama centering around an abortion counselor's secret that she had given birth to her step-brother's baby when she was a teenager and quickly gave it up for adoption. In this role, Lisa Kudrow really excels with the writer-director's dryly observant style: she's loose but not flailing, inquisitive but not harping, apprehensive but not frightened. Kudrow (whose comic timing reminds one of Roseanne's in the early years of her TV sitcom) mixes a look of anxiety, despair, nervousness and anticipation with astonishing skill--even when her character is humiliated (or humiliates herself), Kudrow has a way of keeping all the flightiness grounded in some form of reality. Matching her, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Tom Arnold have some wonderful early scenes; she's a born user and a killer karaoke singer, while he plays the father of the gay 21-year-old drummer whom Gyllenhaal has already seduced and discarded. It's too bad we don't get more of this relationship, and also unfortunate that Roos covers up most of their dialogue with soundtrack music (it's a coupling which happens in montage). Roos plants little subtitles throughout the movie to help sort out who's-who, and this works to some degree (yet it's a relief when the device is momentarily given a rest). Some of the other story threads are dim (a couple of which center on gay men turning their homosexuality on and off like a light-switch), but Kudrow's work and Tom Arnold's natural, easy-going presence keep the film absorbing and often appealing. And nobody sings "Just the Way You Are" like Gyllenhaal. **1/2 from ****

A Very Interesting Film

[whpratt1 · 7/10 · 31 January 2007]

Being a great fan of Lisa Kudrow,(Miriam Mamie Toll) I greatly enjoyed her outstanding performance when she was getting a physical rub down in the most unconventional positions. Steve Coogan,(Charley Peppitone) gave plenty of sparks to his performance in a film that dealt with straight and gay guys and gals. This film starts off with a teenage girl and boy who are brother and sister-in-law having hot sex and starting a reaction that continues all the way into adulthood and more. There are many sub-plots that can confuse a person at times, however, the film is worth watching and it was nice to see Sarah Clarke, (Diane) "24" TV series who played a gay gal in this picture and is a very sexy gal and I hope to see her in more future films. There is comedy, but I really did not find myself breaking down with laughter, all the actors did an outstanding job. Enjoy

Happy Endings Do Exist...They're Just Not The Fairy-Tale Kind

[Chrysanthepop · 16 December 2009]

Don Roos's 'Happy Endings' is a splendid comedy drama about complex people and their complicated relationships and pursuit for significance. It tells the story of lost people who are in search of something to feel important. Saying more would be giving out too much but as the viewer travels along with these characters in their search for happiness we learn how they find something to hold on to and that a happy ending need not necessarily be the fairy tale ending that we all know does not exist. In my humble opinion, this movie has one of the best endings. Don Roos comes up with a totally original complex and he tells the story beautifully. The execution is superb and I liked reading the captions. His quirky characters are richly defined and even though they are not always likable, they are sympathetic. The soundtrack is wonderful and it introduces Maggie Gyllenhaal's singing talents. Clark Mathis's cinematography is first rate. A cast could not get any better than having Lisa Kudrow, Steve Coogan, Jesse Bradford, Bobby Cannavale, Jason Ritter, Laura Dern, Tom Arnold, Maggie Gyllenhaal, David Sutcliff, Johnny Galecki and Maggie Gyllenhaal in one film. All of them perform excellently. This should be proof enough that Lisa Kudrow can carry a film as lead actress. Coogan too is very convincing as Mamie's stepbrother. Gyllenhaal and Bradford prove that they are two of the finest actors of the current generation. Laura Dern is very effective in a small role and I like how Tom Arnold plays the incredibly naive do-gooder dad . I have already watched 'Happy Endings' a couple of times and it doesn't get old. I don't know if it's the kind of movie that would appeal to a majority of the general movie watchers but it is one of my all time favourite films and I look forward to anything by Don Roos.

juggling with soap opera abandon

[ThurstonHunger · 6/10 · 18 February 2006]

I rented this film out of brotherly love, and it actually starts with a very different act of brotherly love as well...but not the good kind. I didn't even realize this was the director of The Opposite of Sex until discussing this with a friend.

Anyways, I don't find this to be a comedy, as it is as bemusing as it is amusing. Roos does give a handful of actors chances to go over the top, which works while also giving this a sort of sitcom feel. At the same time, touching upon people's need to have some dirt, or special secret in their lives and using the old movie-in-a-movie trick makes certain this isn't a film that was knocked out as poorly as Mamie (often pronounced Mommy it seemed to me) was knocked up.

The film is a celebration of quirkiness, which thanks to avoiding clichés works okay for me. It actually drew my wife in to watching it with its sort of soap operatic maneuvers. Although the series of false endings, then more denouement, then another false ending she found maddening. She also was distracted by the text sidebars that give us an omnipotent wink as to what is going on, and in some cases completely undercut the dramatic tension going on. Just don't watch the film with subtitles on at the same time...

The idea of the quest for the lost son, as opposed to lost father also was interesting, but this film likes its characters more than its themes I suspect. Again, a sort of soap opera strength.

I recognized but could not place Jesse Bradford here, from his recurring stint on West Wing as a scion of political privilege. And same was true for Bobby Cannavale even goofier here than in the "Station Agent" Really the whole cast seemed to embrace their outlandish characters and I think that's this film's forte. Kind of like watching some nice juggling, and all the balls fall in place ultimately.

6/10

"A more unbearable film than Gigli."

[FrankRizzo1 · 1/10 · 9 August 2006]

An unsuccessful attempt is made to tie all these loose threads together into one coherent story. Even more irritating than the film's third act triumphs is its lack of faith in moviegoers' intelligence. The surface smoothness can't make up for the deeper flaws...it fails signally in establishing any solid emotional connection with most of the people it portrays. Trouble is, every character is having problems in a homo-hetero-Angeleno world but they lacks substance, each little more than a composite of quirks and one-liners. Happy Endings is the kind of self-conscious puzzle picture in which characters behave in ways that serve the plot but in no way resemble things that actual human beings would be likely to do.

Nice Little Diversion

[jmorris236 · 8/10 · 12 November 2005]

Having tremendously enjoyed Don Roos' previous effort, the Opposite of Sex, I snapped up Happy Endings upon release of the DVD without knowing anything about it. Many of my friends didn't like the Opposite of Sex; when I asked them why, each confessed a dislike of Lisa Kudrow. When I noticed she was also in the cast of Happy Endings, and in fact plays one of the main characters, I figured I'd better shut up about mentioning my latest acquisition to some of those friends until I had a chance to watch it. Watch it I did, and I have nothing but good things to report. Like the Opposite of Sex, Happy Endings revolves around several gay and straight characters, with enough attention paid to both, thus ensuring that the film could appeal to a mixed audience. There is where all similarities end. While Opposite of Sex had a relatively up-front and focused plot, Happy Endings manages to juggle several plots and subplots all at once. Each of the characters lives touch other characters lives in a style not unlike that of director Robert Altman. In fact, I kept thinking that the pacing and juggling of the subplots was somewhat similar to Short Cuts, or even Crash (in the way that Crash was also compared to Altman's style). Keeping everyone sorted out in my mind became something of a chore, but I generally like films that make you think and keep you on your toes. There were one or two surprises, including several totally unexpected plot twists, and that's always good too. As a comedy I didn't laugh so much as I smiled, and I asked myself more than once, "I wonder what will happen next". As the end credits were rolling I decided I enjoyed my visit with these people, and could easily have managed to sit though even more. How often do you hear that about a movie that runs over two hours?

The cast, which includes Tom Arnold, Jason Ritter and Jesse Bradford give even and professional performances throughout. It worked in a way that good ensemble pieces always work; that is, it would be difficult to single out any one member of the cast, as they worked off each other in such a way that no one could expect all the notices. Another good thing, in my book. I am definitely going to suggest to my friends that they give Don Roos another shot, Lisa Kudrow and all. I can certainly think of worse ways to spend a couple of hours.

Will Oscar remember Lisa Kudrow at the end of the year?

[SONNYK_USA · 7/10 · 14 November 2005]

"Everything is a much bigger decision than we think"

Sound familiar, it could pass for an independent cinema manta. Hey, this is an indie comedy - guilty as charged. It seems the critics has seen all these characters and situations before but what they've failed to grasp is that quirky, ironic, and painfully funny moments are what make indies worth watching and the more familiar the better. Not to mention risky casting and this film has all of that and more.

On that note I put in my bid for Lisa Kudrow's first Oscar nomination as she has finally broken the 'Friends' mold (along with a streak of bad studio comedies) and fleshed out a three-dimensional character. As 'Mamie', the abortion counselor, Kudrow must painfully convey both a personal secret humiliation while dealing with indifferent patients. As if that isn't enough, Mamie also finds herself being blackmailed by filmmaker-wannabe 'Nicky', played with needy bravado by Jesse Bradford ("Bring It On"), who has some information she doesn't want anyone else to know.

Another comic actor who also breaks the Hollywood mold (so to speak) is longtime sidekick Tom Arnold ("True Lies") as 'Frank', a role he should have 'paid' to play. Why you ask? - well he does get to seduce 'not-one-but-two' of the great actresses in this film and does so with all of the comic neediness one would expect. Still, it's a role to die for and he raises his game to meet the challenge.

I could go on and on about this cast which is stocked with indie starlets like Laura Dern ("We Don't Live Here Anymore") and Maggie Gyllenhaal ("Secretary") plus hilarious comic actors ranging from Steve Coogan ("Coffee and Cigarettes") to Bobby Cannavale ("The Station Agent"). In fact, it's Cannavale's masseuse character (with the hilariously bad Mexican accent) that gives the title of the film its ironic twist.

And if you like disturbingly funny (albeit intrusive) on screen intertitles then this is the film for you. Indie fans UNITE! - this is your MUST-SEE viewing for the summer! It's like a quirky, old friend you've been longing to re-acquaint yourself with - plus it'll help to take away the 'bad taste' left in your mouth by more recent indie fare like "The Ballad of Jack and Rose" and "Palindromes."

Check it out!

Sad Mess

[kenjha · 3/10 · 17 November 2009]

Intertwining stories cover a group of characters, many of them gay, in Los Angeles. The characters are uninteresting and the script is a dreary bore. Kudrow is a limited actress who lacks the star presence to carry a film. The rest of the acting is not bad, with Arnold surprisingly effective as a rich man with a gay son. Roos wrote and directed but shows little aptitude for either task. The plot lines are ludicrous, especially the one about a gay couple and a lesbian couple arguing about whether the latter used the former's sperm. Most annoyingly, the screen is sporadically split in half and some random, trivial information is displayed about the characters.

Already one of the most underrated films of the year

[mrmatt14 · 10/10 · 6 July 2005]

The early reviews on this are mixed, which is a shame. I saw it at an advance screening and thought it was one of the best films I've seen in a long time. The plot is complex, and it expects a lot from the audience.

The film starts as a very dark comedy. The audience reacts with a "This really shouldn't be funny, and I shouldn't be laughing at this." As the movie progresses and the false facades of the characters fall away and they're made to recognize the consequences of their actions, the tone of the film shifts and all of a sudden, those things aren't so funny any more.

The cast is phenomenal, and the film is phenomenally cast. Their chemistry seems authentic. The secret appears to be that so many of the actors are cast against type (Kudrow isn't the comic bimbo, Arnold's playing the most dramatic and heavy role in the film, Bradford isn't the pretty boy, etc.) On top of that, every one of them, at some point, sheds every scrap of dignity they have as actors to make their characters real. That's probably a credit to Roos's directing.

Not everybody is going to like this film, and that's probably OK. It's a pretty challenging work, and I can easily see a very polarized reaction to it. Those people who are willing to surrender to it will find that it is a phenomenal ride.

modern interconnections

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 19 December 2015]

It's 1983 Los Angeles. Mamie Toll is 17 and her mother marries a rich restaurant chain English guy. She has sex with her new stepbrother Charley Peppitone and later supposedly gets an abortion. Nineteen years later, Mamie (Lisa Kudrow) is a divorced abortion counselor dating masseuse Javier (Bobby Cannavale). Charley (Steve Coogan) runs the only restaurant left over from his father and he's gay now with Gil (David Sutcliffe). Gil's lesbian high school friend Pam (Laura Dern) and her partner Diane (Sarah Clarke) have a son Max and Charley starts to suspect the paternity. Restaurant worker Otis (Jason Ritter) is a closeted gay from his father Frank (Tom Arnold) and dealing with his band singer Jude (Maggie Gyllenhaal). Manipulative filmmaker Nicky (Jesse Bradford) tries to blackmail Mamie for $25k to give the present name of her son who she didn't actually abort.

The characters are all interconnected in modern familial ways. There are probably too many characters and stories. The stories meander in sometimes usual ways. I like some of the acting. Tom Arnold surprises me by doing real acting. I don't particularly like the closing texts for each character. It becomes more or less like a laundry list of their futures. That only accentuates the problem with this movie. Every character has to have a plot and I am suppose to care about them.

Doesn't really work

[rwtmoore · 3/10 · 26 February 2011]

Happy Endings There was attempt to do something original here, unfortunately, the experiment failed. It's more of a graphic novel with moving pictures than it is a film. We're spoodfed ridiculous amounts of exposition via placards that pop up on the side of the screen like fun bubble facts from a video. And what makes it worse is that it's not an objective, ominipotent narration, but a narration that's written in the spoken vernacular with a definite point of view. If it has a definite point of view, who's writing it? Some mysterious omnipotent subjective narrator that we never meet. And we know it's not God, because of the lame attempts at being clever and funny. And just when you think it can't get worse, the fun facts tell us things in the distant past, the distant future, the characters' thoughts, and even what's going on with the bodily functions of some of the characters. Oh man. The story lines aren't very good either. I could not see Mamie going along with the extortion and the other shanigans that goes on after. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. Most of the dialog was confusing, implausible or just lame. For example, Lane tells Jude, "I still don't see the problem. In a month, you tell the old guy it's his... and then when you deliver, it's like this really big preemie... that just happens to look like both of them. We're not reinenting the wheel here." Yeah, it's the old have sex with the son, have sex with the father and you don't know who got you pregnant. We all know that routine, right? Who hasn't been down that road? It's so ridiculous. The storyline with the lesbians and male gay couple is not much better. It's way too purposely convoluted. It's like the filmmakers are digging to find ways to unnecessarily complicate the storyline. And then there's the hallmark of trendy and lazy filmmakers - the corny montages set to trendy pop music to tell us how to feel. And the split screen thing seemed like it was only there to show that they could do it. And why was Mamie running willy-nilly at the end? When I heard the title, it made me think of that hackneyed joke about massages and I thought the filmmakers were above referencing a stupid, overplayed joke like that. But, sure enough, that's what they were doing. It reminds me of "Coyote Ugly", another waste of film. Virtually every actor in this film is great, but they can't save a script this absurd. It's just so much schlop.

one of the best indie films this year

[jamesdamnbrown · 22 July 2005]

Sometimes when I'm watching a black comedy or a drama with a very ironic, dark sense of humor--like In The Company Of Men or Good Fellas--I often find myself laughing harder than anyone else in the theater. Happy Endings was that way. The trailer patched together the most slapstick moments in the film and created the impression of a much less intelligent and subtle film, sort of a bubblier take on something like Laurel Canyon, with which Happy Endings shares a few similarities, both thematically and structurally even down to the rock band subplot, as it follows the intersecting romantic affairs and emotional dramas of a group of tangentially connected characters. Happy Endings is a much smarter movie though, the script is well-written, and the droll subtitles that slip on screen from time to time to omnisciently provide additional details about a scene or character are not only funny but add a literary touch to the narrative that help establish the tone of the movie. This is one of those films that doesn't provide a clearly sympathetic protagonist, which often causes priggish movie reviewers like Roger Ebert to diss the merits of the film as a whole since he couldn't find anyone he liked in it. Everyone in this film has issues, with the exception of maybe Tom Arnold, who--cast against type--plays the nicest person here, and what the film is sort of about is how everyone is looking for what they need in a relationship, but how given each person's own desires and hang-ups they end up manipulating or hurting the people they become involved with. Standout performances by Lisa Kudrow, who once again shows that she's one of the most underrated comedic actresses around, and Maggie Gyllenhaal, who invests her gold digging character with unexpected humanity.

Roos missed the mark with this one

[eht5y · 6/10 · 20 November 2005]

Director Don Roos' 1998 film 'The Opposite of Sex,' which starred Christina Ricci as a manipulative white-trash vamp who shows up on her gay half-brother's doorstep one day, moves in, and gradually proceeds to destroy his life, is one of the most unique and uniquely affecting independent films of recent years: realistic but absurd, heartbreaking but also bitingly, achingly funny, it made a name for Roos and set a high bar for his future work, which 'Happy Endings' unfortunately fails to reach.

'Happy Endings' begins with a somewhat similar premise--a tryst between step-siblings Mamie and Charley, in which the typical power roles are inverted and the female is the seductress of the innocent and naive boy who eventually turns out to be gay (perhaps sparked out of latency by the trauma of impregnating his step-sister). The film jumps forward in chronology, with three separate, interconnected story-lines in play: the grown-up Mamie (Lisa Kudrow), 20 years later, is carrying on a secret affair with Javier (Bobby Cannavale), a Mexican masseuse who occasionally provides 'the full release' for his clients, when an unstable young hipster named Nicky shows up on her doorstep, claiming to have information about the whereabouts of the child she gave up for adoption 20 years before, which he will produce in exchange for letting him film the reunion and its aftermath for a film school audition tape. Meanwhile, Charley (Steve Coogan) is dealing with his own issues related to parenthood, allowing certain suspicions about the child of his and his lover Gil's best friends, a lesbian couple (Laura Dern and Sarah Clarke) who had once attempted to get pregnant with Gil's sperm. Charley manages a restaurant featuring karaoke where one night the curiously seductive Jude (Maggie Gyllenhaal) mesmerizes the karaoke crowd and gains an invitation from Otis (Jason Ritter), a young karaoke d-j who has a crush on Charley, to sing for his band. Jude shortly initiates a plan to seduce Otis' father Frank, a wealthy widower, threatening to out Otis to his father if he interferes.

Each of these story lines advances independently with the occasional technique of a split-screen against which Roos presents somewhat cryptic textual exposition about the characters' lives and futures--the sort of stuff that would typically be delivered in voice-over by a narrator. The technique is interesting at first, but starts to wear thin until the conclusion, when it is over-exploited to swiftly tie up the meandering plot-lines, which never seem to have the sort of resolute connectedness we'd expect them to have.

The big upside of the film is the acting, which, for the most part, is superb. Maggie Gyllenhaal has an odd look--not traditionally beautiful, but alluring, and totally persuasive as a hipster sex-pot in the mold of Christina Ricci's Dede in 'The Opposite of Sex,' and she engenders a powerful love-hate attraction in the audience. Jason Ritter gives a subtle, endearing performance as Otis, suggesting that he's got more going for him as an actor than his late father's connections. Bobby Cannavale is a delight as Javier--sooner or later he will get the big role he deserves after stealing so many scenes in smaller character parts. Jesse Bradford--a more familiar presence in the teen-exploitation genre--is surprisingly strong as the off-kilter Nicky. Tom Arnold all but steals the film as the pathetic Frank, whose loneliness and need are matched only by his warmth and likability.

'Happy Endings' has its moments, but in the end, it just isn't as clever or surprising as it builds itself up to be. The ends never really tie up in a satisfying way, and towards the conclusion, the on-screen narration starts to feel like a cheap device to lend gravitas and cohesiveness to the messy plot. Furthermore, the film is pretty humorless--a tone that seems unsuitable for a story about confused, emotionally immature people whose real connection seems to be a pathological compulsion to act irresponsibly. Roos' knack for clever, quirky characters makes it worth the viewing, but 'Happy Endings' never gives the audience the 'full release.'

Great acting and great story but sadly a happy ending

[ScottDMenzel · 7/10 · 31 July 2005]

"Happy Endings" is one of those movies where several different stories are told at once. One story is about a depressed abortion clinic therapist Mamie (Lisa Kudrow) and her secret life with Javier (Bobby Cannavale), another story is about her gay brother Charley (Steve Coogan) who is trying to prove to his lover that his best friend's child is actually his, the third story is about a documentary filmmaker Nicky (Jesse Bradford) who wants to blackmail Mamie to make a documentary about her, and finally the last story is about a father and son (Tom Arnold & Jason Ritter) who fall for the same girl (Maggie Gyllenhaal.) There are some other little stories in between but these are the main ones. The film focuses on all these characters and their lives. The results are sometimes humorous, sometimes depressing, but in the end lead to a happy ending.

I didn't know much about this film only hearing it was big at Sundance and seeing the trailer which was intriguing. I liked the film because it really was interesting to see how everything got connected. The director and writer Don Roos (The Opposite of Sex) did a great job with the beginning of the film by immediately grabbing everyone's attention! What I liked most about this film was that you had to think and keep thinking throughout the whole movie because if you didn't you wouldn't understand it. It had so many stories that you had to keep up with and they all did get solved in the end but if you weren't paying attention or thinking then you would have missed one or two of them.

The film itself does have a few problems which I have to point out. While the story is very interesting and does keep the audience focused, by the end I think it runs a little too long. I also think that actually making the movie have a happy ending kind of softened the impact of the film. There was a great spot in the movie where everything was coming together and everything just seemed like crap for almost everyone involved and I was like yes! This is going to be good; the whole joke of the movie is the title "Happy Endings." This is what I thought to myself and if it did end like this I would probably give this film a 9 instead of a 7 but it didn't, it went on to have a happy ending which is where the film lost me. Because during the film, it just kept on getting better and better as the stories went on. I really couldn't predict what was going to happen next! But just when I thought that the film was over with a perfect ending! Bam happiness had to happen.

Another thing that annoyed me was the constant written narration borders that kept appearing. It was creative the first couple of times it happened but after a while, it got annoying and really took the focus off what was happening in the film. And the last thing I didn't like about the film was that at times it tried to hard to be funny and a lot of jokes feel flat. It's like those weird jokes that maybe 5 people in the entire audience get.

The acting however in the film was just terrific. Bravo for the entire cast although I have to mention a few performances that stood out above the rest and those were Lisa Kudrow, Maggie Gyllenhall, Jesse Bradford and Tom Arnold. Kudrow plays a great serious and deep role. Arnold's character is also very dramatic and convincing. Bradford doesn't play the heartthrob here but the wacky documentary film maker. And Gyllenhall's performance is sleazy and cruel. And as a bonus we even get to hear her perform 3 songs for the film.

This is Don Roos third attempt at a feature film, and I think it's probably his best too! It's not a perfect film but it is shot so that you feel the emotions of the characters and feel bad for them at times, and find them amusing at times as well. I think by Mr. Roos's 5th feature film I think he will be able to direct a film without any errors. This film isn't bad at all don't get me wrong because the story is original and different however it does need a little improvement.

Overall, Happy Endings has a terrific original story, great acting, but it has a few down falls and to me the most disappointing thing about the film was the ending. I think the biggest joke this film could have played on the audience was to make the ending an oxymoron to the films title. But like I said already, it's a good movie to see because the performances are terrific and different then most roles the actors and actresses played previously. That and the story alone are worth the price of admission at the box office.

MovieManMenzel's final rating for "Happy Endings" is a 7/10.

Doesn't quite deserve the 6.9 it currently has on IMDb I'm afraid

[oosterwaal · 6/10 · 20 November 2005]

Happy endings follows a range of people that are loosely connected to each other and tries to tell what is currently happening in their life. It all revolves around Charley and Mamie, a stepbrother and -sister. Mamie dates a mysterious Mexican immigrant and is confronted by a guy who says he has information about her son, which she gave a way for adoption after birth. Charley has a relationship with a man. We see them and their relationship with their best friends (a lesbian couple) evolve. We also meet Otis, who works at Charley's restaurant, and his father. They too have some relational troubles to go through and the movie picks up on that too.

Happy endings starts out really slow. Not much is happening for the first hour or hour and a half. The movie just describes a group of people and the issues they have in their relationships. While I didn't mind a slow pace in movies like 'lost in translation' or 'remains of the day', this movie's storyline simply wasn't interesting enough for me and perhaps lacked the subtleties of the two aforementioned movies to keep me entertained during the buildup of the story. It's one of those movies without real action, suspense and -although it's about relationships- even without a real romantic storyline. It just tries to tell a story (a couple of stories intertwined even) about a group of people and what's happening to them in a certain part of their life. I was kind of surprised to see it rated 6.9 currently on IMDb, usually the ratings really match my appreciation of a movie. In this case they didn't. I rated the movie a 6 and I hope the explanation above helps some of you decide if you want to see it.

Is there life after Friends?

[lamer76 · 1/10 · 23 May 2006]

Is there life after Friends? The only reason I watch movies starring one of the six main cast members of the show is the hope that some real talent lies there. Until now, I must have seen everything except talent. But in this film, Lisa Kudrow tops it all. I don't think I've ever had to endure such awkward acting, obvious even as she walks into a room without saying a single word. I'm not sure if she was just putting in too much effort trying not to look and sound like Phoebe or if Phoebe is simply the only character she can play. Either way, it was quite painful to watch.

The film is basically three loosely connected stories and for some unclear and baffling reason, it opens with a scene from the end as Mamie (Kudrow) is hit by a car. We are then reassured by the writers - through text that constantly and randomly appears on the screen in the middle of conversations - that she will not die because this movie is sort of a comedy. Flashback to 20 years ago, step-siblings Mamie and Charley (Coogan) have sex and Mamie gets pregnant. Flash-forward to now, Jesse (Bradford), a young documentary filmmaker, approaches Mamie with knowledge about her son that had she given up years ago. If she agrees his filming the encounter between mother and son, he will lead her to him. He needs this to get into film school. She refuses, and in a scene lifted from an 80s sitcom, offers him another story instead: Javier (Cannavale), an illegal immigrant turned sex worker. Javier is actually Mamie's boyfriend, a masseur who seems to give out happy endings to some of his female clients.

Story number two is about Charley, who now runs a restaurant and is actually gay. His lover, Gil (Sutcliffe), had given his sperm to their lesbian friends Pam (Dern) and Diane (Clarke) because they wanted a baby. According to Pam and Diane, they didn't use his sperm but in fact resorted to another source to get impregnated. Charley is almost certain that the couple is lying because they don't want to share their child with them.

In the third story, freeloader Jude (Gyllenhaal) buddies up to Otis (Ritter) because she found out his dad is filthy rich. Since Otis is gay (and in love with Charley), Jude finds her way into the dad's arms (Arnold), with whom she unwillingly and unexpectedly falls in love.

Kudrow's pathetic performance aside, the movie was simply pointless. I don't believe that stuffing the cast with gays and lesbians gives any more dimension to a badly written, badly performed, non-sensical script. I seriously couldn't have cared less about any of the characters, whether Mamie would find her son, or if Gil is the biological father of the baby, or if things will work out for Jude. Give this one a miss for sure.

Good movie. A bit odd, but still good

[alvamark · 8/10 · 9 August 2006]

My wife rented this yesterday and we watched it last night. I'd never heard of it. After watching about 15 minutes of it, I thought "What in the world is this," because it was so frenetic. As written in the summary, there are several stories simultaneously being told, and it's kinda hard to keep everything straight. But, after awhile it starts to come together and you begin to pull for one or another of the characters.

I've never watched "Friends," so I haven't seen Lisa Kudrow much, but this was a good performance as a girl who alternates between spineless and fed up. I hadn't seen much of the rest of the cast before, so I can't comment. I also think it's interesting that Tom Arnold was first known for being married to Rosanne Barr, but it seems that lately he's gotten many various supporting roles, enough so that I find myself thinking: "Yeah, he was married to Rosanne whats-her-name?" Anyway, I liked this movie.

Yes, it's bizarre, quirky, odd, whatever you want to call it, but it ends well. It's one to watch. One more thing: it has many spots where there is a black sidebar with kind of "footnote" information. I found myself eventually pausing the DVD to read these things, because I didn't want to miss the music and a bit of action that might be taking place. I wish they would have just paused the movie at these points, and they were worthwhile explanations. Thumbs up!

The Film is Flawed - but Performances Are Not

[tj1screen · 6/10 · 12 July 2005]

While the unemployed critic eloquently delineates the failings of Roos, HUGE kudos must be awarded to Kudrow, Cannavale and Gyllenhaal for making the film watchable. Both character realization & acting were superb. Gyllenhaal is brave to exude a most unlikeable female; yet she is so interesting & complex, you cannot keep hating her. Kudrow's maturity - both physically and as an actress - is enthralling. These two deep yet luminous performances keep the film from sinking under the heavy weight of too many characters & lazy explanation cards and limp script and direction. With her hairstyle, Kudrow very much reminded me of Catherine Keener and is growing into her ability to give us a character of depth - not just crazy mannerisms. Also, Bobby Cannavale from THE STATION AGENT was terrific too.

Could have been better

[rkalla · 5/10 · 7 February 2006]

When a movie resorts to sidebars to explain the plot, especially as much as this one does, it implies that the writer has gotten lazy with his story development. A well-written movie could tie things together without the self-consciously cute little blurbs. I mean, the blurbs even tell the viewer right up front that this is a comedy -- in case you were wondering??? The saving grace is the acting. Tom Arnold, Lisa Kudrow and Maggie Gyllenhaal give great performances and really make their characters three dimensional. And each story unto itself is pretty interesting. The gay couple story was a bit trite and clichéd as far as the depiction of homosexual couples, but was still serviceable and interesting. I guess if I were to fix the story I would have strengthened the bonds between plot lines or I would have separated them completely. The tie-in between Otis and Mamie's stories was tenuous and tacked on. It's as though the writer were cheating a bit. Here we have some great stories and duologue. The acting is very good. But the writer didn't spend the extra time it would have taken to really craft the story into a cohesive whole, rather than resorting to the whole "indie" flick dodge of incomplete, fragmented storytelling passing as "art."

Life as a View from the Window of a Speeding Downtown Metro

[gradyharp · 8/10 · 20 November 2005]

Writer/director Don Loos has the corner on bizarre, wiggly, frustrating, veritas-infused glimpses at the absurdity of human 'communications/relationships' happening right now. His previous writings (some with direction credits) include 'The Opposite of Sex', 'Boys on the Side', 'Love Field', and 'Bounce', all of which explore the desperate need for regular people to find just a hint that their time on the planet makes a difference - at least in some small way despite their larger delusions. His characters are quirky, both bigger than life and pathetically dreary, and cross the lines of the expected borders of types: Roos is one of the few directors who consistently plays the 'minority groups' (gays, lesbians, African Americans, Hispanics, etc) as simply other characters on the playing field of life. And for that he deserves some respect from everyone.

HAPPY ENDINGS (suggestively referring to the ad promise found in masseur/masseuse in the Massage Available columns of magazines and some newspapers!) follows the lives of multiple characters whose rather insignificant existences intersect in random ways that produce ten 'stories', all interrelated. Topics on the table include abortion, gay relationships, homophobia, parental dysfunction/child dysfunction, emotional manipulation, blackmail, film-making, artificial insemination, failed dreams, and more. Sound like ingredients for a comedy? Well, no, but in Roos' funky hands these incipient tragic topics weave through tragic trails that result in dark comedy outcomes. And that is the fun of the film.

Yes, there are problems with the movie that others have pointed out well. The gimmick of sidebars explaining what the script doesn't attack, visible on the half screen with scene change action, begin as clever and end up as annoying: if the script can't carry the issues without footnotes then there is just too much information for the viewer to digest. What keeps this movie afloat are the performances by Maggie Gyllenhaal, Lisa Kudrow, Jess Bradford, Bobby Carnavale, Tom Arnold, Steve Coogan, Laura Dern, Sarah Clarke, Jason Ritter, David Sutcliffe and Amanda Foreman. This is a talented cast and at times we feel they are actually overcoming the plot's weaknesses with their strong imagery.

Every Roos film feels like a work in progress, but there are enough fine lines of creativity that promise us someday they will all gel into an exceptional film. This one is too long and too choppy and too difficult to follow with all the visual interruptions of sidebar words to be his best work. Grady Harp

Interesting and intriguing film with bunch of different topics

[KineticSeoul · 7/10 · 18 February 2011]

This is actually quite a intriguing movie and the three subplots were interesting for the most part. I had to pay attention to this move instead of just listening to the dialogue while surfing the web, because in certain scene the movie goes into split screen. And while the movie is going, the other side of the split screen has certain text that give more info about the characters of what is going on or what is going through the characters mind. Which I thought was sort of unique and didn't seem tacky and fit right into the movie. Sure the three subplots aren't connected very closely, but it's still a pretty intriguing black comedy with pretty good performances. It's a ballsy and creative movie that keeps the interesting aspect going until it's finished. It would have gotten a higher score from me if the plot was interwoven together more better.

7.3/10

Low performer

[annuskavdpol · 4/10 · 9 March 2012]

The movie Happy Endings was supposed to be a dark comedy. But I don't recall laughing once. I didn't find anything about the story to be anything but tragic. And yes, tragedy does happen in life but I have enough of it on a daily basis that I feel that I don't need to be reminded of it on my Friday night. I thought there would be more lesbian subject-matter. But instead there was a lot of homosexual - male gay sexual and male gay ideas in the movie. And of course, the typical straight story.

There were these stories of people which to me, did not interconnect properly. The story, in my opinion, was not coherent. It did not make sense. I much prefer stories that make sense from beginning to end. Give me a typical Hollywood story any day.