The ending spoils a sweet, cheerful and funny film!

Rating: 7/10 (24 January 2017)

I remember a few years ago having a discussion with a friend on the Bollywood film 'Guzaarish' (2010) - a film that holds 95% similarities to it. His opinion was that a film (or a film-maker to be precise) is under no moral obligation to show the right "thing", the right ending or showing something that matches the common standards of "rightness", and that a film is just a recording of a story - right or wrong doesn't even come into the picture.
Although he did make a very solid and thought-provoking point, the point remained in my view that this too depends on the gravity of the topic and how sensitive it is; and making a film about physically challenged people is a sensitive theme, just like rape is. I asked him whether he'll stick to his otherwise very intellectual point if someone were to make a film about a habitual rapists who and end the film on the note that he goes on to lead a very wonderful life full of happiness. He got stuck there, and this remained my standard to judge films: in short, the topic, its gravity and sensitivity is all that it depends on.
So that remains a problem with this film and I can fully understanding the reactions that it's getting from physically challenged people and such organisations. I'd still give it seven stars because it was otherwise a very, sweet, cheerful and funny film (I understand one isn't supposed to behave that rudely with anyone, but Will's witty replies were really hilarious!), and highly engaging too with its theme revolving around freedom and being yourself, being true to yourself. Despite a bad ending, the last scene with Louisa walking away with those striped socks was really heartening, and, again, despite that, I couldn't help praising the film because it was incredibly sweet.
I remember I blasted 'Guzaarish' back then, but the reason for that wasn't only the topic but also the fact that the film was dull and boring beyond words! So there's a difference between the two.
As a footnote, I thought Louisa's ex-boyfriend got a harsh treatment. He wasn't at fault too much and was neither a bad guy. Showing him as a the "Other type of guy" could've actually pressed more on the "freedom" angle, but alright. They didn't show something that isn't possible: falling in love with another guy/girl than your boyfriend/girlfriend. It happens, whether that is alright or not or whether it qualifies as cheating is a debate for another day and place.
*Most of what I've written in criticism of the film applies to the book too of course that it is based on.*