Only in America...... - 99 Homes (2015) Discussion

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

Agreed. It's not that I don't have sympathy for people who fall on hard times and I certainly don't agree with the actions of various institutions who are disreputable....but this sense of entitlement in the film was sickening.

As I mentioned before the idea that people don't have to take any responsibility for their actions and that banks shouldn't give a damn if you can't pay the rent/mortgage is ridiculous. If on top of that people think they can also live outside their means...this is dangerous.

The house isn't yours until it's fully paid for. Until then it's just on loan...a loan you agreed in a contract to pay off every single month.

reply

[–] slidell333 8 years ago

To the OP and the posters who responded...Amen. I've been there. The writing is on the wall. No matter how much you scream "I grew up in this house!" NOBODY cares. Maybe you shouldn't have taken a 85k loan out on tools and used the house to do so! Don't ever use your house for something like that! Ever! You are basically saying you'll risk your family's house for some tools. Wow.

reply

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

I'm not without sympathy for those in dire straits.....but the sense of entitlement in this film and the inability to apply themselves to an alternative because of that blinkered approach to their own role in their story irritated and frustrated me.

reply

[–] tabbycat 8 years ago

I also did not appreciate the movie's not-too-subtle take on anyone who evicts people to be scum of the earth. They're doing a job, a legitimate but nasty one that has to be done. Rick was a crook who cheated people, yes. But that fat guy that gets in Dennis' face because he threw him out of his house calling Dennis an a$$hole? No, he's the a$$hole. I know someone who defaulted on his mortgage, then got years of free rent from the bank. Did he say thank you? Nope, everything was the bank's fault, nothing was his. In the end, he still felt entitled to "his" house. He wasn't.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

There's even a reference in the film to someone taking out an additional loan for a patio in their garden without the ability to pay it back. Michael Shannon said words to the effect of "They managed for 20 years without it but now they've got to have it even though they can't pay. And I'm the #sshole when they get evicted!?!?"

I couldn't help but agree with him. This movie was desperate for us to be sympathetic for those who were arrogant enough to be complicit in their own downfall. Weird.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

I think it was trying to show 'all sides' - but if you're going to do that, then you don't turn your realtor into a ruthless villain... It's like it wanted to be realistic, but at the same time take things to an extreme to maximise drama. Pick a lane!

Did you not even feel sorry for the old guy, though? Especially since what was shown in the movie would NEVER happen to him? Hardcore! 



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] motherfckzombies-261-668745 8 years ago

It's the hard times that's heartbreaking in this film. I truly felt a tough knot in my stomach when the old man was being evicted. When you're at that age and played by the rules your whole life, a level fairness if truly due...even in an unfair and cruel world. I imagine if anyone in my family was in that position and it's heartbreaking.

reply

[–] denise1234 8 years ago

Given the state of the economy these days, I found this movie painful to watch.

"A distant ship, smoke on the horizon. You are only coming through in waves."

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NoEasyBucketsBro 8 years ago

I guess not everybody is mature enough to say we didn't pay our loans back in time, oh well, have our house and we'll go dump all of our possessions somewhere while we live in a motel. Most of the families getting evicted in the film were fighting until the last minute to keep their homes. They made mistakes and they paid for them, but the emotion is understandable. I hope none of us ever have to experience some guy in a suit telling you that your home is not yours anymore.

reply

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

But yet again you are positioning this as something that was done to these poor unsuspecting people. That's an assumption not born out by the narrative.

There were plenty of examples in the movie of people who had time, had choices, had opportunities. Yet they're shown deciding to say *beep* it I'm going to be stubborn and stay in this 3 bedroom mansion with a garden whilst not paying for it and steeling utilities from next door.

Where does it say in constitution that every man is entitled to live for free in a massive house that you don't own without repercussions? You're right about one thing (said sarcastically I guess)

I guess not everybody is mature enough to say we didn't pay our loans back in time

reply

[–] JayCeezy 8 years ago

Thank you for this, and for starting this thread. I was about to give up on this board until I saw this thread.

The story is compelling, I do feel sorry for the people losing their homes (not houses, HOMES!), and for the confusion the family members feel when the one responsible for making the payment EFFS up and the eviction starts for real.

But what struck me was that I didn't see anybody who took a loan, took the cash-out mortgage, took the second so they could build a patio they didn't need, NOONE, took responsibility. They took the money alright, but they denied they were responsible and deserved the consequences.

This story was Shakespearean, where Rick Carver was the 'devil' and Dennis Nash made a 'deal-with-the-devil' in order to avoid his fate. Let's face it, Frank Greene is going to be right back there 90 days from now, not having a job and not having made a payment and his pro-bono lawyer who used a technicality to delay eviction is just prolonging the pain. Who suffers? The bank, the lender, the buyer, the neighbors, the lawyer who worked for free and accomplished nothing but another few months of rent-free living for people who can't support themselves. Ugh.

I did like the movie very much for the first two acts, but the third act, where Dennis Nash 'lost it all' by buying the nicer house but losing his son and mother, having to lie and defraud a neighbor, and then burst the babytears and admit to lying at gunpoint, all while changing nothing in the outcome, was pretty thin. I was expecting much more, based on reviews and recommendations. The reviews now seem to be of the mindset of a high-school sophomore, a little wise, but a lot dumb. Feelings, but never having to make that mortgage payment or figure out that you need to save money and live beneath your means.

reply

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

See I'm not saying that the housing market doesn't have scams and that many involved aren't sharks, because they are. But what infuriated me about this film is that there wasn't a single character losing their house from defaulting on their loans who took any responsibility for their own actions.

This is the whole sub-prime market in a nutshell - bankers selling unrealistic mortgages to people who won't be able to pay back AND customers accepting unrealistic mortgages because they are greedy and don't care. Literally no one in this movie considered down sizing. Not one. They all saw it as their right to live in a massive property even if they couldn't pay the bills.

Madness

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 8 years ago

whilst

Now I can guess your a Brit and have no right insulting America. I've never said anything negative about Brits except you Brits don't speak English very well. The things you do in your daily lives and your politics are none of my business, yet lots of foreigners run their big mouths about Americas business.

Tolerance Is Intolerant Of Politically Incorrect Thought...🇺🇸

reply

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

Why is every non-American excluded from commenting on American society when things such as the American sub-prime market dragged the entire world down? You need to stop being quite so insular and realise that stupid decisions made in America have broader repercussions......but there we are again, using that naughty word 'repercussions'.

I tell you what, I'll make you a deal as a representative of the rest of the planet earth (??) you guys promise to stop doing things that drag everyone else into the sh*t and I'll keep my nose out of your country's business. Deal?

reply

[–] sellis1 8 years ago

you Brits don't speak English very well

Hmm, I wonder where the English language started.

reply

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

The point is that some of them should be wise enough to realise that it was NEVER theirs.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 8 years ago

...would a bunch of people in massive 3 bedroom houses but without an income, insist that they should be allowed to go without paying their loans. The sense of entitlement in this movie was shocking. There was literally a scene in this movie where a guy was stealing the power and water supply from the next house who said "I'm not a thief"?!?!

Most shocking of all the movie expects us to be sympathetic to everyone in the movie without even a single hint of responsibility.

Well obviously you're too arrogant and lacking in compassion to realize that these people may have lost their jobs due to bad economy, etc,. And I'm sick of the knee-jerk America bashing! I'd love to know your story and how you have any grounds to be doing so.

I do agree that the evictees had plenty of notice, but obviously Hollywood wanted it to appear like they had no idea they were scheduled for eviction.

Tolerance Is Intolerant Of Politically Incorrect Thought...🇺🇸

reply

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

So apparently I'm arrogant because I said that the film had a dubious theme that people shouldn't expect any repercussions to being unemployed, having no money and yet refusing to move out of their massive property even when they have defaulted on their mortgages??? What a bizarre child-like dream world you must live in....free of responsibilities and repercussions.

By the way you are assuming on the conditions for these people's financial situations. For all we know they could be fired for gross incompetence or be gamblers who went to Vegas and let it all ride. The film doesn't say and you've just decided to insert some bullsh*t. Most likely they are people living beyond their means and not considering the repercussions. That's wholly consistent with the narrative. There's even a tale told within the film of a couple taking out a massive loan that they couldn't pay back for a patio upgrade....you know....that essential item that people need to survive!!

Oh and you'd love to know my story? Well I am member of the human race who understands the adage 'There's no such thing as a free lunch'.

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 8 years ago

I was wrong. You're right, but you should have blamed it on the script. This is not how real people act in that situation. Sure a small percentage may act like idiots, but they have plenty of warning it's coming which the movie doesn't depict and most people understand that they either pay their loans or they lose the possessions they haven't paid for yet.

I can't believe this movie has such a high rating. It takes a ridiculous amount of nerve to say "this is my home" when you haven't paid it off yet. This movie is flawed in so many ways and all for dramatic effect.

Tolerance Is Intolerant Of Politically Incorrect Thought...🇺🇸

reply

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

It's difficult to weigh up the percentages....but my gut feeling says that the number of people living way beyond their means is probably far greater than the exception. I find that portrayal in the film worryingly believable. The story of the sub-prime fiasco is always told as if it was bankers selling mortgages they shouldn't have sold....it is seldom told as customers taking mortgages they shouldn't have taken.

As the phrase goes 'It takes two to tango'.

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 8 years ago

The story of the sub-prime fiasco is always told as if it was bankers selling mortgages they shouldn't have sold....it is seldom told as customers taking mortgages they shouldn't have taken.

The difference is, and why the creditors are more culpable, is because they have years of study and research behind them, where the debtor is a common person that doesn't have vast experience and the resources to ensure their future. If the creditor makes a bad decision, they break a fingernail, if a debtor makes a poor decision it can cost them a roof over their heads. I do agree though that the evictees, as portrayed in this movie, were outrageous.

I was evicted once and I knew it was coming so I got out before the law had to get involved. So it was irritating watching these families act shocked and defiant that they weren't leaving because it was their home. That's Hollywood ridiculousness. Sure I believe it happens, but in the movie every single one of them acted like it was a total surprise.

Tolerance Is Intolerant Of Politically Incorrect Thought...🇺🇸

reply

[–] Chanpuru 8 years ago

Thing is for me this is once again about taking responsibility for personal actions as opposed to trying to apply culpability. Sure the bankers were partially at fault and sure they suffered less....but the debtors had a responsibility to look out for their own interests because they would be the first people to reap it if something went wrong.

It's like stepping off the curb with the attitude that if you get hit then there can be a debate about who's fault it is......no, no, no. It's not about fault or who takes the most damage it's about me caring more about my life than the grill of a truck. To hell with the bankers. It's not like these mortgages were sold to infants.

Truth is there was almost certainly millions of people in America who signed dodgy contracts for things that were ridiculous from the beginning....yet no one concerned themselves with the practicalities. It was sign now, care later.

reply

[–] Waldimore 8 years ago

ITA

The villain of this movie is what we've become as a nation. America is the villain. The system has pitted what used to be rock solid, salt-of-the-earth citizens against a ruthless, class of businessman who are playing it's a dog eat dog world.

These posters must have gone to the bathroom during Carver's monologue that said this exactly. Or they were so busy hating on the losers which is where we are in America today.

It's the system. And it's not going to be changed over night even with a Trump or Sanders, the 2 outsiders pointing this out.

This movie is a comdmnation on where we are in America now. Carver is gaming the system. He's not the villain. But neither are the people who were gainfully employed and then suddenly had the job rug pulled out from under them. And maybe in this movie the people did not seem to be working, but a lot of unemployed Americans did take whatever job they could find and still could not make ends meet.

Government is punishing it's citizens for policies they've enacted and the mistakes they've made. And it has encouraged people untouched by economic ills to blame them for not finding a way to be like Nash.

Everybody can't be Nash.

These economic policies are destroying us. We have to go step-by-step to get it back on track.

reply