...but I can't exactly remember what. When a film purports to have a philosophical viewpoint on sex, relationships, fidelity and especially on how they each involve and relate to women, and ten minutes after the thing ends you can't remember what that viewpoint was, is this a good indicator of how well it got its points across? Yes. It is.
Individual scenes worked well enough with a succession of portrayals of seemingly functioning relationships slowly showing cracks of dissatisfaction, but this is the best part of the movie. The cast of mostly TV actors is good, but the overall sociological ideas (as promulgated by Seinfeld's Jason Alexander) are weak and poorly focused, beyond that which is obvious or trite. The look of the film is good enough indicating efficient use of a middling production budget, but there are no grander cinematic ambitions here, no attempts to build up the script's ideas using the cinematic landscape. The landscape is just a background for the characters. It's not boring, exactly, and those in a mood for a relationship comedy won't hate it, exactly. They just won't get anything more out of it than they would a two inch column in Cosmo.
