|Someone give this man an Oscar already!|
The main premise of Friends with Kids is that two platonic best friends, Jason(Adam Scott) and Julie(Jennifer Westfeldt), decide to have a kid together, and share the responsibilities without getting into a relationship. They see how miserable their friends have become after having kids, and they figure the best possible scenario is to already have a kid and then find your soul mate afterwards. Considering what your marriage can turn into if you have a child it's an interesting premise.
On the one hand, it's a terrible idea because in the best possible scenario a child should grow up with two loving parents, who also love each other, so they have the best possible chance not to get fucked up in the head later. On the other hand, considering the statistics of divorce and how many people think they love someone when they really don't, and then have a baby together either by accident or on purpose and THEN find out they hate each other and have to put a kid through that, why wouldn't you want to cut all that out?
|Is there an award for being Jon Hamm? Because there should be.|
I honestly wanted their experiment to work out, and for them to each have their own separate lives. But being as this is a romantic comedy, OF COURSE they have to get together at the end. And it doesn't even feel like the movie is saying something about this not working as a viable child-bearing option so much as it feels like they have to get together at the end because that is rom-com law.
The main reason why they aren't together is because they aren't attracted to each other(or as it's later revealed, Jason isn't attracted to Julie). I find that is a legitiame concern and why I was rooting for this relationship to work. You SHOULD be compeltly and fully attracted to your partner. The three main features of a relationship are similarity, caring, and attraction. If you just like the same things and you care about the other person but you aren't attracted to them, you're just friends. And that's why some marriages fall apart when they could have otherwise been great relationships: one person isn't attracted to the other anymore, they go out to find soemone they are attracted to, and love turns into jealousy and hate. Why can't a child be raised on love and caring without attraction?
|I think these portraits turned out rather well.|
Then to make the cliche even worse, Jason suddenly decides that, well he is attracted to Julie. It feels like such a copout. In the real world, if you're not attracted to someone, you'e not attracted to soemone. It doesn't just flip on like a light switch, otherwise life would be way easier. Then people wouldn't leave when they suddenlt weren't attracted to their partners anymore. What I would've liked to see as an ending is Jason acknowledging he isn't attracted to Julie, then decides to lie to her and stay with her anyways for the good of the child, because he realizes sex isn't that important. That's a tough decision. That's a great arc for his character who was previously a sex crazed womanizer.
As it stands, it's better than I expected, but not as good as I would have liked. Still, it's a fairly good movie with some great acting. I just wish it's ending wasn't so romantic-comedy generic. What about you guys and gals? Did you see the movie? What are your thoughts about the premise? DO you think it should have worked or failed? What did you think of the ending?