Joe Versus the Volcano: Existential Quirk or Just Plain Quirky?

Okay, folks, I finally braved Joe Versus the Volcano. I'd heard… things. Some loved it, some loathed it. All I can say is, it's certainly… something. Meg Ryan plays three, count 'em, three distinct roles, and Tom Hanks is at his most adorably pathetic as Joe, the downtrodden hypochondriac. The premise alone is wonderfully absurd: a guy finds out he's dying, gets offered a fortune to jump into a volcano to appease the gods of a remote island. I mean, where do you even start with that? The first act, stuck in that soul-crushing factory, is genuinely well-done. The drab greys, the soul-sucking fluorescent lights… you feel Joe's despair. But then it takes this hard left turn into pure whimsy, and that's where I started to get a little lost. I appreciate the attempt to grapple with existential dread through absurdist humor, but I'm not sure it quite sticks the landing. The whole "luggage scene" felt a little too on the nose with the symbolism. That said, I couldn't completely dismiss it. The visuals are striking, especially once they're on the ocean, and the score is surprisingly effective. Plus, Ryan and Hanks have undeniable chemistry, even when she's playing three different women (I'm still a bit fuzzy on the point of that, to be honest). I think it's a film that'll stay with me, not necessarily because it's brilliant, but because it's so confoundingly unique. It's a messy, ambitious, and ultimately baffling attempt to find meaning in the face of absurdity, and sometimes, that's enough. So, what did you all make of it? Am I missing something profound, or is it just a beautifully shot, slightly bonkers, cinematic oddity? And don't even get me started on the orange soda...