should it have different ending?!!!

Actually, this movie has the typical romantic comedy ending - the jealous rival is foiled in her "evil plotting" (as George calls it) and true love triumphs in the end. What keeps this from being just the same thing we've seen countless times before is that it's told from the point of view of the villain, played by the reigning America's Sweetheart. It's not all that rare in this kind of story for the antagonist, after being defeated, to see the error of her ways and apologize.

The second i've read the plot i knew what was going to happen at the end. It was so predictable.

I'm satisfied with the ending involving Michael and Jules. Wherein Jules realizes that she and Michael are not in love at least he with her. But the one I have an issue with is the one wherein Jules friend, George shows up at the party and they dance. I actually saw the first version wherein she calls George and we can clearly see he's still in New York and a guy approaches her and asks her to dance and she refuses at first but George tells her to go dance with the guy and she does. I think that makes more sense that she's getting over Michael. And what was also in that version was that the catering crew sang too. I think it was cute. Too bad they didn't keep it. I know George stole the show at the restaurant but remember he's gay; are they going to end up together.

It was refreshing that it was NOT a typical ending where the two "rediscover each other". It is still a romantic proposition, that they DON'T end up together, and that the Gay Brit friend is her redemption.

If we can't have the one we love, but find true friendship with someone, we can later have a second chance at love.

I know this from experience...

While some people are smarter than me in this area, some of us less wise have been in her shoes, and have done some similar, silly things... perhaps that's the appeal. Those of us who hold in our heart "the one that got away" generally understand the character's situation, smart people don't act on it as she (and some of us in real life) did, but for the Protagonist to arc, she has to be over the top, do what most wouldn't normally do, fail, and grow from the experience.

That's the appeal: she loves someone she'll never have, but learns that she can hold her love for him even as she lets him go and finds true friendship in the end with him (her former lover) and other friends, particularly the British fellow.

Actually, having Jules and Michael end up together and Kimmy left heartbroken would have ruined the movie for me. It's clear that Kimmy passionately loves Michael and that Jules's feelings are borne more out of her unwillingness to give up her best friend to another woman. It is also clear that Michael loves Kimmy and idolizes Jules.

The entire movie highlights why Kimmy and Michael should end up together. It also shows why Michael and Jules never hooked up and probably wouldn't have save Michael deciding to marry another woman. Would Jules really have been happy following Michael around on his low-paying job? No. She'd be miserable in a heartbeat. That isn't her character or personality type. Michael is looking for someone he can be romantic with. Jules wasn't the romantic type (well, again, until Michael decided to marry another woman). Kimmy is the romantic type.

Lizzie

To love another person is to see the face of God! - Les Miserables