Let me say right away that I am not generally a fan of dramas, of the story of someone destroying their life, or recovering it. However I found something about this movie mesmerizing.
My guess is that it was the lack of sentimentality I found so appealing. The main character was not a cartoonishly evil villain, but neither did was he villain with a heart of gold. I don't want to say that he was realistic in that he represented the behavior of a large number of men; rather he came across as a very real example of a particular class of men. And likewise for all the other characters --- all portrayed with sympathy, and as real human beings, not archetypes.
My one complaint was with the ending. It's not that I dislike the ambiguity: does our hero choose love or sex? It's that, after the richness of everything that has gone before, the understanding of the complex motives that drive people to do foolish things, even as they know they are foolish (and, also, sometimes, to do beautiful things), the choice that is presented is so simple-minded. The implication is that, sure, this guy can, after six years of being a dick, just decide that this phase of his life is over, it's time to go back to being a decent guy, and everyone else around him will just accept the change. It's a jarring piece of garbage sentimentality which ruins the rest of the movie.
How could the ending have been handled better? I think at the very least, the musings at the end about why he did what he did could have been augmented with some acknowledgment of the larger picture, something like thoughts on the difference between what we like and what we want, or how hard it is to not simply reach out for what you want, even after plenty of experience has taught you it's not what makes you happy. I'm trying to avoid saying something trite, which implies our hero has learned a deep and valuable lesson from his experiences, while also trying to suggest that he's not a complete fool, that he can look back on his life and connect the dots.
But the ending is (of course) only one part of a movie; and I have very little to complain about the rest.
My guess is that it was the lack of sentimentality I found so appealing. The main character was not a cartoonishly evil villain, but neither did was he villain with a heart of gold. I don't want to say that he was realistic in that he represented the behavior of a large number of men; rather he came across as a very real example of a particular class of men. And likewise for all the other characters --- all portrayed with sympathy, and as real human beings, not archetypes.
My one complaint was with the ending. It's not that I dislike the ambiguity: does our hero choose love or sex? It's that, after the richness of everything that has gone before, the understanding of the complex motives that drive people to do foolish things, even as they know they are foolish (and, also, sometimes, to do beautiful things), the choice that is presented is so simple-minded. The implication is that, sure, this guy can, after six years of being a dick, just decide that this phase of his life is over, it's time to go back to being a decent guy, and everyone else around him will just accept the change. It's a jarring piece of garbage sentimentality which ruins the rest of the movie.
How could the ending have been handled better? I think at the very least, the musings at the end about why he did what he did could have been augmented with some acknowledgment of the larger picture, something like thoughts on the difference between what we like and what we want, or how hard it is to not simply reach out for what you want, even after plenty of experience has taught you it's not what makes you happy. I'm trying to avoid saying something trite, which implies our hero has learned a deep and valuable lesson from his experiences, while also trying to suggest that he's not a complete fool, that he can look back on his life and connect the dots.
But the ending is (of course) only one part of a movie; and I have very little to complain about the rest.