Especially by the end of the film. I didn't feel like he had any reason to be all that angry with Jeremy. And I thought interrupting his wedding in the middle of the ceremony was a dick move. Like... really? Couldn't have done that at the reception?
shareMe neither. Jeremy was a cool guy, but John was a self-pitying douche who couldn't except he screwed up and take responsibility for his actions.
"Don't cry, it is to be; in time I'll take away your miseries and make 'em mine... D'Evils."
[deleted]
Because it was more complicated than just being angry about Jeremy's continued relationship with the redhead. Lovesick, depressed, shot down at every point, no longer caring for his past life. John's whole world had changed. It isn't hard to believe that he might have a breakthrough. Poor choice of place and time but, well, it's a movie. What better place to tie off all the loose ends and bring the wedding crasher theme full circle?
share[deleted]
The scriptwriters made Sack an unfaithful character in an attempt to paint John as the "good guy" by comparison, but yeah John was a far bigger douchebag than Sack was. Yes Sack was a horrible boyfriend but this is only to the knowledge of the viewers, not to John. As far as John is concerned, he put eyedrops in another man's drink and attempted to steal his girlfriend because he cared about no one but himself. All of Sack's behavior towards John was justifiable, and didn't really become an *beep* until he tried to boss Claire at the wedding. I wished that Claire chose neither of them.
I shudder to think that there are people like John in this world, who would plot stealing a girlfriend of mine away just because they were in love with her too.
Sack was a douche to Claire before the wedding. When he was sick he was very condescending and cruel to Claire, even though she was acting very sympathetic to him and the fact that Sack was sick was 0% her fault. Plus the fact that Sack always cheated on her. Sack was a far bigger douche. John was just immature.
shareYes Sack did all those things but none of which was to the knowledge of John. As far as John goes, he was trying to steal Claire away simply because HE was in love with her. Picture someone trying to steal your girlfriend away because he feels he is the right man for her and not you despite no knowledge of what your relationship with her is like, and then you will see that the John Beckwiths of the world are much more dangerous than the Sack Lodges. How Sack treats Claire is nobody's business but Sack and Claire's and yes Claire should have left him but it is not up to someone else much less John the wedding crasher to make Claire realize that. And it's not like John was breaking the news to Claire that Sack was cheating on her, his rationale for wanting her was:
John: You can't marry this guy
Claire: Why not?
John: Because I'm in love with you
John didn't even have any knowledge of Sack being a douche in general outside of being too rough on Jeremy in the touch football game.
Being rough on Jeremy during a touch football wasn´t the only way that John had knowledge of Sack being a douche. Sack also shot Jeremy in the ass while they were hunting (on purpose). While John couldn´t have been 100% sure that Sack shot Jeremy on purpose, he had strong reason to suspect that he did. Plus John could sense that Claire wasn´t happy with her engagement to Sack based on 1) Her reaction was less than positive when Sack announced their engagement at the dinner table, and 2) Claire admitted to John that she was having second thoughts about her relationship to Sack. So suffice to say, I think that you left out a few key details.
shareAnything Sack did to Jeremy is irrelevant in the discussion about Claire.
1) Again its not the responsibility of John the wedding crasher to get Claire to realize she shouldn't marry Sack based on his perception of her reaction to the engagement. A large part of her reaction was that they had never previously discussed getting married.
2) All those feelings she spilled to him happened after he went full-on robbery mode. So, these are valid reasons for why she shouldn't marry Sack, but not valid reasons for why John's behavior was justified.
Again, you and your girlfriend are out to dinner with another couple. Which do you prefer to be at the table with, a guy who falls in love with your girlfriend or a guy who mistreats his own girlfriend? If your answer is the first one, then, agree to disagree.
What is relevant here based on the original point isn´t who I would rather be at a dinner table with. What´s relevant here is who would I think was more flawed character-wise (or, a bigger douche to put it more bluntly). People can´t control who they fall in love with (and who they don´t fall in love with). But people can control how they treat their own girlfriend. Mistreating one´s own fiancee reflects more negatively on one´s character than falling in love with someone else´s girlfriend (remember, Claire was not engaged when John first met her), because one has control over the former but not the later. Would John still have pursued Claire if he didn´t think that Sack was such a douche? We will never know.
shareSince when is a girlfriend sacred? They weren't married, there was no ring on her finger. Fair game. Sack was a cheater anyway, so poetic justice that someone steal his girl from him.
shareThey weren't married, there was no ring on her finger. Fair game.
sack and claire were in a relationship (3 years i believe), that's not dating. you sound clueless, i really wonder if people on here have any experience in relationships at all by the stuff they write.
shareUnless they are engaged, they are still girlfriend and boyfriend. So, it could be argued they are dating.
I dated my wife for over two years before we got married.
... they were engaged and planning their wedding.
It was a dick move to end the film on. Then again it's Racheal McAdams.
While they were certainly "planning" to get married and "planning their wedding," I'm going to be a stickler and say a true "engagement" requires one of the partners to actually ASK the other, and get a yes in return!
shareHe didn't have to be "likable" on a grand scale, just more likeable than Sack!
share