With this review you occupy the unenviable position that every movie reviewer finds themselves in once in a while: you are one of the ones who doesn't get it. Maybe you are too far removed to know what teenagers today are actually like, maybe you just don't understand teenage boys and how they relate to each other in particular, but you missed a lot of the nuance in this film. I take articular issue with your interpretation of Seth, you say, "Seth is meant to be a lovable nut... but all too often...he just comes off as a jackass." Why do assume Seth is supposed to be loveable? Knowing the way the Apatow gang tends to approach characters, the tend to care much less about creating characters who are sympathetic than they do characters who are based in reality and are funny. The character Seth is one of the most realistic portrayals of a certain kind of teenage boy that I have ever seen on film, and one of the implicit messages in the film is that Seth is in fact a jackass. In that respect, I guess you didn't get it wrong in terms of your interpretation but rather in your expectations. That brings me to my final point, if you didn't like the movie because of its "moral code" I would suggest that you are misreading it. You seem to assume that investment and enjoyment of Seth and Evan's stories indicates some sort of acceptance of and support for their choices. I don't think the filmmakers expected people to like the characters as much as painfully identify with and understand them, and ultimately I think that the filmmakers come down on the side of viewing most of the character's actions (particularly those of Seth) as misguided and stupid. Ultimately this film shows teenage boys for what they are, if you find that offensive then its fair to say you don't like teenage boys, but at the end of the movie (in what has become a recurring theme in Apatow related films) if there is a message it is that the boys must grow up and put their stupidity behind them, even if its only on step at a time.

She completely "gets it," the only difference between her reception of that character and yours is that you forgive Seth his idiocy (because it's more realistic) and she does not. I don't think the problem is that Seth is assumed to be a likable loser. He's unlikable and the movie knows it. I had guys like that in my highschool and yes, people did not like them, but that's because they were unlikable! They were crass, mean, loud, rude, and devoid of the slightest comprehension of other people's feelings. They weren't given a best friend as nice as Evan, and if they had one, they would quickly screw them over and lose them. Morally, they weren't ultimately and illogically rewarded for their unlikability with a hot girlfriend. The fact that Seth is rewarded for his behavior, or that we're never allowed to see the root of his personality in any believable way, I can see why Dana would say that this movie unrealistic and morally offbase by rewarding Seth, even if he represents "the real."

Mercadia, I would suggest that both you and Dana are indeed off-base because you both, quite reasonably, are filtering the content of the movie through your own moral and psycho-social-sexual prisms. That, of course, is a completely reasonable thing for anyone to do -- but only for the purposes of determining if one likes the movie or not.

I also think that there are generational divides. You and Dana sound like you are coming at the film from a different gender- and age-bracket than the teenagers of the characters or the early twenties of the actors/writers. I think the movie is a comedy of coming of age, but completely from the aging-boy perspective. Ideally, everyone will see his or her own flawed humanity in the comedy, but applying an older or female subjective perspective is a risky approach to critique. The character in "Juno" of the married man/potential parent who falls for Juno is an awkward caricature, but to reject the movie because it doesn't get the early-middle-age male perspective would be a travesty.

Dana really does *not* get it. She nearly admits this. David Denby and the previous forum writer, Marcable (sp.?) are far more incisive. The rutting of adolescence often plays out amidst excruciating amoral and immoral behavior. To judge the film against such an ethical backdrop is to misjudge it.

Don't you think there's a responsibility though with something in the mainstream? I am under the (perhaps rebuttable) impression that mainstream movies encourage, as well as merely reflect, behavior. Reflecting is, I guess, acceptable. Encouraging is another story.