MovieChat Forums > 99 Homes (2015) Discussion > Terrible, ridiculous movie with great pe...

Terrible, ridiculous movie with great performances

posted 9 years ago by paultimmonsemail
10 replies | jump to latest

Great performances with horrible direction and a decent story. First off, when Andrew Garfield's character is smoking a cigarette with his son in the car sitting next to him it completely ruined any sympathy I might have had for him. Then the Bollywood (the director is Indian) party scenes went on way to long and did nothing for the story development. A big point was made that the main characters had concealed weapons they never used WTF? This is not a 'well made' movie on that point alone. The MacGuffin of the real estate deal that was central to the plot was impossible to understand. Garfield had a stand off with a homeowner who threatened him with a gun and that was never played out. At the climax, a homeowner was shooting a gun out the window, shot the gun in the house at his family and was standing in in front of a window surrounded by cops who had a clear shot at him and the director expects us to believe that the cops wouldn't shoot him, they would let him make a speech (the actor was good). Ridiculous. Just a self indulgent director who doesn't understand how to tell what could have been a really compelling story. Maybe it's cultural. IDK. Garfield and especially Mike Shannon gave great performances in this Holly Bollywood hybrid movie. The director ruined this movie.

[–] jacobfrye 9 years ago

For what it's worth, the director was born in North Carolina to Iranian parents. He's not Indian.

[–] MrSoloDolo 9 years ago

You sound really stupid.

[–] Stiles5339 9 years ago

The movie wasn't confusing. When there's a family inside - yeah, the police would hold fire because of hostages within the premises. If the cops missed and the bullet flew behind him into an area too dark to see - they could have hit potentially hit one of the hostages instead. Thus, precautions had to be made. The party scene was showing the indulgence that these people live while others are starving and homeless, thus it was important - it showed the contrast of lifestyles beyond just the property owned and to the behavior itself.

[–] mikeyflatley 9 years ago

i thought grate gatsby done it better

Werd 2 ur mudda, bruddafckka

[–] huckfunn 9 years ago

Then the Bollywood (the director is Indian) party scenes went on way to long ...

Way too long?????? There was one "party scene" (that I recall, and I just saw the film) that took up maybe a couple of minutes.

Garfield had a stand off with a homeowner who threatened him with a gun and that was never played out.

I'd say that was pretty clear foreshadowing of the armed standoff at the end.

I do agree that Garfield's smoking was unnecessary to the character or the action -- although one could say that smokers, like Garfield, are risk-takers who deviate from the norm. You're right that the legal frame-up of the evictee was presented too quickly for comprehension. The point, though, was that powerful, corrupt real-estate kings can and do get away with legal tricks.

Martha Washington was a hip, hip, hip lady, man.

[–] imaintdan 9 years ago

Hmmm. This isn't like a Bollywood film whatsoever. Nor does the director make such films.

https://zitzelfilm.wordpress.com

[–] PacificHeights 9 years ago

You have no sympathy for him because he smoked a cigarette? Good God. There's nothing wrong with smoking. He was stiffed out of two weeks pay because the company he worked for went bankrupt. I felt sorry for him.

[–] hermanotorres 9 years ago

It just can't be reiterated enough that the director is an American, of Iranian descent & in no way "Indian"! Ignorance! There was nothing remotely "Bollywood" about this movie!? Where do you get this stuff from? Bahrani is a true auteur, a great director.

[–] eleutherosxesitis 8 years ago

At the climax, a homeowner was shooting a gun out the window, shot the gun in the house at his family and was standing in in front of a window surrounded by cops who had a clear shot at him and the director expects us to believe that the cops wouldn't shoot him, they would let him make a speech (the actor was good).

The cops should have turned him into a colander.