There is nothing quite as simultaneously frustrating and liberating as coming across an old flame years later. Crossing paths with an individual with whom you shared some of your most intimate moments before drifting apart can be a challenging experience, but one that can bring about a lot of catharsis – and the more time you have to plumb the past, the more transcendent the experience can be, at least in an idealised version of such a scenario. Meg Ryan, in her second directorial outing, seems insistent on exploring this topic, which she delivers in the form of What Happens Later, a film that has interesting ideas but finds itself fumbling in just about every area that it attempts to explore. Based on the play Shooting Star by Steven Dietz, the film follows Willa and Bill, two individuals on the other side of middle age who find themselves stranded in a small regional airport, and it doesn’t take long for them to run into one another. What starts as brief pleasantries underlined with a sense of passive-aggressive disdain for one another eventually evolves into something deeper when they realize that they cannot leave until the storm abides, leading to a long evening of exploring the past and coming to terms with the specifics of their past relationship, which had a substantial impact on their lives and which they are finally able to resolve. A film that is as conventional and cliched in practice as it sounds in theory, What Happens Later is bizarre – not in terms of its themes or the story being told, but rather in how it is so limited to being nothing more than a jumble of the most obvious narrative elements imaginable, which Ryan seems to be deluded in believing are more than enough to sustain our attention when in reality it is one of the most singularly frustrating entries into a genre that is already criticized for its dependency on common tropes. A film as dreadfully boring as it is profoundly strange in both concept and execution, What Happens Later is one of those rare failures that doesn’t achieve even the most basic sense of consistency or originality, and instead functions as something that doesn’t even deserve to be called mediocre, which is essentially a compliment in comparison.

What Happens Later is the kind of stage-to-screen adaptation that we can very easily spot from quite a distance, and it doesn’t take too long for it immediately to fall victim to the same trite approach in terms of the story. From the recurring omnipresence of the deity-like voice that guides these characters, to the realization that they are the only two speaking roles in the entire film (and where everyone else is essentially expensive set dressing), this film shows its cards almost immediately. Thematically, Ryan doesn’t do much in terms of actually trying to be original – the concept of former lovers running into one another and going over the past has been done on countless occasions, and in nearly every other instance, it is far superior to this approach. However, there was a clear sense of wanting to convey a particular message on the part of the director, so we might as well point it out in the hopes of at least trying to make sense of it. This film believes that someone can be your soulmate, but not necessarily be a constant presence in your life – some people enter into your orbit for a short period before departing, but leave an impression that guides their life forward and sets them in the right direction. Moreover, it asks whether it is possible to start over with someone who defines your past so strongly. The two protagonists in this film meet each other when they are much older than they were on their last meeting, but are both holding on to whatever vestiges of their youth that they can, at least in the presence of one another, desperately trying to convey the sense that they are the same person, despite the passage of time. There are good ideas in What Happens Later, it’s just clear that Ryan missed the mark when it came to highlighting them and chose to instead go for the most obvious low-hanging fruit available. The original play is certainly not anything particularly remarkable in itself, but it does explore some intriguing themes, which this film seems to overlook in favour of something more palatable and by that logic, entirely unconvincing from start to finish.

In addition to adapting the play and directing it, Ryan also stars in What Happens Later, her first leading role in over fifteen years. Those expecting some triumphant return to form for the formerly iconic actor known as “America’s Sweetheart” are bound to be left disappointed, since this is not the kind of performance we’ve come to expect from someone known for her infectious charisma and girl-next-door candour. Instead, her performance as Willa is almost uncanny – she’s forcing herself to play this off-the-rails eccentric, which she does with such little effort we can’t be convinced for even a moment that she is a good fit for this role, and the entire film begins to suffer based on Ryan’s constant desire to play a character so far out of her wheelhouse. This isn’t to say she should have stuck to the same kinds of roles she is known for playing, but rather putting more effort into bringing this character to life than wearing oversized clothing and walking with a gait that is so clearly intended to proclaim the character as the embodiment of quirky charm, we ultimately get the opposite as the result. Mercifully, she pairs herself with David Duchovny, who is far more adept at playing this crumpled, faded middle-aged man standing at the crossroads and trying desperately to make sense of the world that surrounds him. If there is any merit in What Happens Later (and there are points where we wonder if there are), they’re all the result of Duchovny, who puts in a lot more effort and is far more convincing. Unfortunately, this doesn’t do much to alleviate What Happens Later as being anything more than an attempt to capture an elusive spark of romance. It doesn’t help that there isn’t much chemistry between the two leads, and we are never sold on the central romance, whether the one that exists through the layers of exposition-heavy dialogue or the one that we watch unfold in real-time. There isn’t much connection between the leads, which ultimately ends up weighing the entire film down.

Perhaps the most unintentionally hilarious aspect of What Happens Later is that Ryan earnestly believes this to be a revelatory piece of filmmaking, rather than a by-the-numbers romantic comedy that contains just about every trope associated with the genre. From its introductory scene, it is clear that Ryan is insistent on recreating that sense of magical realism that enshrouded a lot of romantic comedies in that period between the late 1980s and early 2000s – and it often feels as if Ryan is simply emerging from the era where she was at her peak and making a film along those same lines. Unfortunately, as supportive as one wants to be when it comes to novice filmmakers, she simply does not have the directorial prowess to elevate this material above being just a hopelessly mediocre bundle of cliches, strung together in such a way that it feels not only conventional, but entirely outdated. This kind of enchanting tale in which two star-crossed lovers are forced to revisit the past while being in close confines is a remnant of the past, albeit not the kind that instils a sense of nostalgia for how the genre used to be but rather makes us wonder whether or not Ryan has been able to move into the contemporary era. Not to discredit her efforts, but this is not the kind of film that anyone should be viewing as some immensely challenging directorial endeavour – the acting and writing are primarily the attraction here (although as we’ve noted, neither are particularly good), so to have a film that is not only visually very drab, but often quite unimaginative in scope and style, rather than using these elements as an opportunity to experiment with the form of the genre, is a missed opportunity. There’s very little merit in how Ryan forms this film, and it is the quintessential example of an actor choosing to move into directing by making the most obvious, simplistic by-the-numbers comedy imaginable, rather than daring to embrace the chance to prove their mettle as a filmmaker. It’s very difficult to find merit in the approach the director takes here, and the overall project is just simply a frustrating and heavy-handed jumble of conventions.

What Happens Later is such a non-descript, dull piece of filmmaking, that it cannot even be bold enough to take any risk. It is undoubtedly a failure from start to finish – Ryan is simply not a strong enough writer or director (and based on her performance here, her acting is also in dire need of additional work) to make up for the deficiencies in the narrative, which needed a more assured hand at the helm to prevent it from being the overwrought mess we ultimately received. In many ways, it feels both appropriate and severely disappointing that someone whose entire career has revolved around trite, conventional romantic comedies would make one that represents almost all of the most hackneyed, dull conventions of the genre – its as if Ryan is so insistent on reviving herself as the centrepiece of the genre, all she can do is cobble together a mediocre bundle of its most common themes, stringing them together into something barely recognizable as a film, but rather a vanity project designed to catapult her back into the mainstream, doing so through assembling the tackiest and outdated conventions of the genre and passing them off as something complex, when in reality this is a film that exists entirely in the most shallow of narrative and thematic waters. Ryan has shown some promise as a director before, with Ithaca having good notices, but she undoes all of it with What Happens Later, a film that does very little to convince us that she’s willing to let go of her past glory and embrace a new era in her career, and would much rather shoehorn herself into a position – as both an actor and director – that feels unnatural and forced, both of which are perfect descriptions of this entire film and its dismal efforts to be engaging.