The low-budget drama "99 Houses" with Andrew Garfield in the title role does not pretend to be anything serious, but definitely catches the eye. There is a lot to see here.
Strongly established as a dramatic actor, Garfield is not the first time taken and brilliantly copes with the role of a man torn between duty and conscience, making the decision with which he can afford to live on. The character of Michael Shannon, whose cynicism is elevated to the absolute, is good at least because it is able to cause extreme disgust, which the director of the picture seeks.
A significant disadvantage I would call the fact that with sufficient timekeeping, the plot is dragged in places, and in places jumps so that you do not fully catch the moment of the decisive breakdown of the main character, and because of this, the realism of what is happening is easily threatened. And although the topic of the consequences of the crisis is quite beaten, a fresh presentation and a point-to-point story of one family together give a good result.
7 out of 10
Quite badly beaten theme of the economic crisis of the 2000s does not cause interest in itself, but if you add to it dramatic situations from the lives of ordinary people, it becomes much closer and more interesting for a wide audience.
In fact, the filmmakers played on this: a well-known, negative period in the history of mankind (to attract attention) and an acute comparison of themselves to the main character of the picture (to get positive reviews about the picture). In fact, there is nothing more valuable in the film than Andrew Garfield’s utterly lost fortune and his attempt to find himself in the role of the one who brought him to the brink. But to the delight of most of the audience, he never managed to overcome nature and still remained what he was all his life, did not compromise his moral principles.
The film is worth watching, probably to think about the correctness of choosing your role in society, as well as once again to understand that mortgage your family home for dubious loans is not worth it - you can settle in a small cardboard box at the end.
I will tell you right away, something BIG is not worth waiting for from “99 houses”, but nevertheless, it is necessary to view.
Let me tell you what the movie is about.
Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) is an ordinary local builder who lived in the same house with his son and birth mother. But then suddenly there's a problem, he loses his house because he hasn't paid his mortgage. Nash, not knowing what to do, decided not to give up and got a job as an assistant realtor Clover (he evicted him from the house). The point was to evict residents from the district in the most insidious ways. The income from his work became frantic, he could afford to buy a house that was rented by Shaquille O’Neill. But is his family ready for this change? And Dennis Nash himself?
My opinion. The film turned out to be frankly good, because it touches on an important topic, namely, real estate and its dark side. What I liked about the film is that it tells a real story, not something fantastic.
Of course, the film is full of minuses, it is sometimes incomprehensible actions of the protagonist, protracted from the first minutes and so on. But what really pleased me was the acting.
Andrew Garfield - his game is great. Emotions, feelings, oh, what am I saying, you know very well that he is a great actor. In this film he played amazing.Michael Shannon turned out to be a very multi-layered and competent "villain" of this film. He received many awards for this film. I was as interested in watching his hero as I was in watching Andrew Garfield.
The most important thing in the film is that the plot really makes you think about what you did in this situation.
What is the solution to find a hopeless situation in which you were not even through your own fault, but because you were put and driven face to face on the pavement by your own state in the company of bankers? What decision will you make be right? The film of the American of Iranian origin Ramin Bahrani "99 houses" is about this. Or rather, how evicted from their homes those who during the crisis of 2008 could not pay off mortgage loans.
Dennis Nash is an ordinary guy who works as a builder, but loses his job and the house he mortgaged on a loan. He, his mother and his son-schooler find themselves in a hotel where poor people like him live, who lost their homes. The decision as to be further throws Nash Rick Carver, his personal snake temptor, and part-time owner of a real estate firm and the man who deprived him of his home. He sees a smart guy and invites him to work. And soon Nan begins to evict people from their homes, earning good money and dreaming of returning his own.
The film catches the proximity of the theme. You see all this horror of evictions, depressed faces of people, nerves, anger, hopelessness, mountains of abandoned things on the lawn and you understand that in general you could find yourself in a similar situation. The topic is relevant not only for the States, but also for Russia. Recognisable characters: ordinary hard workers, indebted fathers of families, helpless pensioners, and of course unscrupulous businessmen who are ready to make money on everything, even on someone else’s misfortune and at the same time covered by the law and law enforcement officers.
The movie is strong. He throws you into a situation, and you try to understand how you would act in the place of this or that character, and you do not find a definitive answer for yourself.
The cast is great. Andrew Garfield, playing Nash... How the hell does he do that?!... he doesn’t play emotions, he lives them. Lives to its fullest, accurately conveying every detail, every movement.
Rick Carver performed by Michael Shannon turned out to be deep and multilayered. He's not just a pictureless villain from the capitalist world. He's human. With a difficult past that shows how he became what he became. He's a clever businessman, catching every opportunity to earn, not shying away from anything. At the same time, in his eyes sometimes flashes sympathy for those to whom he comes for their homes. In general, a lot of nominations for this role from Shannon deserved in full.
The secondary characters, despite the shortness of their appearance, are written out very reliably. That’s what they are in real life.
As a result, "99 Houses" is a good movie for those who like realistic movies with eternal questions.
It is strange, but people who are my friends in the film search, the opinion of many I trust and constantly read their reviews, suddenly put this picture high marks. I'm a little confused, so it's a bit ragged.
The plot is dramatic, there is no argument, but it is so artificially twisted that each emotion is just a shade of sentimentality. If Shannon's character is understandable, by the way, understandable to the point of ugliness, probably bribes, then Garfield just annoys with his eternal attempt to be understood. Yes, yes, yes, it's clear, they took away the housing, the single father, the fight against the rotten system ... But those crocodile tears, when it's just human trash. There is no golden mean, all thoughts are absurd, and the character himself is not even exposed as a simpleton, but as a fierce idiot. He is not at all sorry, and even a shame that no one will hurt him, so temporarily, but it hurts, he fully deserved it.
You have to get out of the situation, you have responsibility on your shoulders. You are offered to go to another city, to relatives, to start again, to get on your feet, but you refuse, arguing that your son will have to look for new friends. Strong argument, considering the fact that you're huddled in a dirty motel when you're hired by a moral freak yourself. And the freak is not by occupation, here as a conscience will tell, and money does not smell (my opinion), and in this endless whining, like a rag. The character is absolutely empty, he is impregnated only with moisture, which poured liters from his eye holes.
Scenario results are obvious, uninteresting, morality is beaten, and it is trivial and only thanks to the acting efforts of Shannon sat up to the final credits. Although, to be objective, I note that the whole extras were also on top.
The film can be recommended for viewing, but only very subtle and impressionable natures, I found the moral conflict, to put it mildly, delusional and petty-male. Such a subhuman and his suffering.
The previous film I watched was House of Sand and Fog, so 99 Houses, which I noticed a long time ago, was a good logical continuation of the theme.
Dennis Nash works hard at the construction site, but because of a broken contract can not pay the loan in a timely manner, the bank through the court deprives him of the right to foreclose and evicts him from the house - a normal day for Rick Carver, whose firm actually solves all problems with the expulsion of people: negotiates with the local police, hires workers to vacate living space, collects signatures, etc. The next day, Dennis visits Carver, who happens to need his building skills right now – another forced eviction. And Nash needs the money right now because of the situation. Therefore, the first time to overstep yourself is easy - there is an excuse. But the further, the more difficult it is to explain to yourself, relatives, evicted and other people around. And Carver sees the situation of the guy, uses it, gradually shattering morals and permissible, involving Dennis in his machinations, time and again more and more.
Just to compare: The Sand and Fog House is a much more romanticized and dramatized, and hence less vital, version of the foreclosure situation; there are two clearly separated warring parties involved in the conflict. “99 Houses” is all the more realistic: no one is fully responsible. Carver just evicts from the now-owned houses, the banks just want the money back, the judge just acts according to the letter of the law, stamping dozens of sentences a day. You can't fight, you lead, and in a situation of shared responsibility, Dennis has no one to fight. Except for himself - will the hero use a gun issued by Carver or conscience?
The movie is uncomfortable to watch, if, of course, empathize with the hero of Dennis, but this is what makes watching interesting, meaningful. No twisted drama, no fog in the eyes - uncomfortable life in "99 houses."
In Soviet times, it would have been easy to write a review of this film - reached the nearest bookshelf, borrowed a couple of stamps, quickly threw a grid of words on them - and everything, the product is ready, you can serve to the table. Animal grin, man to man wolf - these half-forgotten expressions enter this film easily, like a knife in oil. But what about now? We have found ourselves in the conditions of capitalist reality, and we must get used to considering the situation not from the outside, but from the inside, to looking at it as our possible future. Well, from some of the illusions of “99 houses” can get rid of, if, of course, the viewer will not strongly resist. But first, I'm going to confuse the genres a bit.
“99 Houses” easily turns into a Stephen King novel-style movie. Judge for yourself: an idyllic picture is a small American town, neat houses in which happy families live in an equally idyllic atmosphere of love. Suddenly, evil falls on them. It materialized as realtor Rick Carver, a dispassionate destruction machine. But he is just one of the suction cups of numerous tentacles clinging to unfortunate victims. The monster itself is not shown to us, but its stinking breath is felt and its name is known - Bank. And so on, and so on — good, Hollywood made a lot of films in the genre of sudden introduction into the life routine of the unknown and unearthly. But this is all fantasy, and in fact the authors were shooting a quite realistic film with a claim to social cinema.
In short, the essence of the film is this: the crisis that broke out in America cut the thin threads on which the relative well-being of many American families rested. In accordance with the provisions of socio-Darwinism, the weakest suffered. This was facilitated by the widespread American practice of living in debt. Non-payment of loans taken from the bank on the security of their homes, led to a mass expropriation of homes from losers. There is no work, no earnings, and the law is, and as a result, please get out! We are shown the main stages of the eviction technology: a warning from the bank, a court that can be called one of the subsidiaries of the bank, a visit by a representative of the bank and the police, and the culmination is two (!) minutes on the liberation of the territory. We must have time to collect everything necessary, because in exactly two minutes, an impatiently waiting for the signal, a group of hired workers will throw everything on the lawn so lovingly trimmed by the former owners. And the lawn must be cleaned in a day - now it has a different owner, and it is impossible to clutter someone else's property. And so, for a couple of minutes, a person finds himself in front of a broken trough and, practically, without means of subsistence. But you have to live, feed the family, teach the children, pay the bills.
How is all this implemented? Solo two characters - profiting on someone else's mountain Rick Carver and hapless handyman Dennis Nash, whom Rick first evicted from the house, and then took as assistants. Michael Shannon, who played Rick, managed to portray a ruthless machine devoid of moral checks. But can it be judged from within the system? At least from the point of view of liberal postulates? After all, he acts according to the law, and what is legal is moral. In general, as the radical gurus of Russian liberalism have taught us, it is immoral to be poor and Carver is rich and therefore moral. (In the film, he sometimes oversteps the norm, but it's on the fringes of his main activity, for extra earnings, so to speak.) But Dennis Nash did not get rid of relapses of remorse, occasionally rolling on him and interfering with work. And the mother with her old-fashioned performances, and the eyes of her son... How do you work under these conditions?
In the beginning, I said that the film is a social issue. Such problems are really present, but only in the form of a hint, a background, optionally, that is, if you want sociality – think it out yourself. A little bit and let go. It happens that social problems are revealed through personal destinies, but this method does not work well here. It is interesting, of course, to observe the inner experiences of Dennis Nash, put in an interesting position for the viewer: he was just a victim, but for a moment - and he is already in the role of a hunter, in the very role that he hated so recently. Curiously, the image did not grow beyond a particular case, the director lacked power and talent. As a result, it turned out that the cognitive side of the film outweighs its artistic value and social sound. Not that they don't exist, but that they didn't sound strong, clear, accentuated. Hollywood is not Europe, and the finale, which added a bit of optimism, it confirms that you can not drive the viewer into depression and, more importantly, throw doubts into him about the fairness of social order. You can hint, and there is a hint, but nothing more. As a result, the bitter horseradish was sweetened with a poor-quality, but sticky and sweet medica. However, regretting the unfulfilled expectations, I will say that the 99 Houses deserve to be viewed. No high expectations for the product.
In "99 houses" raises not very common, but the important problem of eviction of tenants from their own homes. In fact, this should worry everyone, because we all live somewhere and everyone should have their own home. And if you take Russia and compare it to America, where the film takes place, then the situation is almost the same. The housing problem is acute and also associated with corrupt officials, black realtors and other bureaucracy.
Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) raises his son alone and lives with his mother Lynn (Laura Dern). Realtor Rick Carver (Michael Shannon) will evict them because the house was mortgaged and the last payments were delayed. The family has to stay at the hotel with their belongings. Nash arranges to work for Rick Carver, who evicted him. At first, he does a little cleaning and stuff, but then Carver gives him a chance to make good money and a way to get the house back. Nash becomes the same realtor and already begins to evict people. But seeing all the people he deprives of home, he realizes that he was in exactly the same situation and begins to wonder: is he doing the right thing?
Andrew Garfield has a different role in this film from his previous roles. He plays a single father who works as a builder. And they show us how he works in construction, repairs air conditioners and so on. And he shows the game emotionally at a high level. She played the role of Laura Dern very well. She showed both the role of the mother and the role of the person being evicted from the house. Michael Shannon is great in all the movies, but this is not his best role, although he was nominated for it for Golden Globes and other awards. It is worth noting the role of the evicted owner of the house J. D. Evermore, starring mainly in secondary roles. Clancy Brown played a very small role of chairman of the real estate office. Most likely, the director Ramin Bahrani took it because of the previous collaboration.
There are very few films of this kind. The emphasis in "99 Houses" is made on the moral choice of the hero. And then Andrew Garfield gave a great acting job. They did not reveal secondary characters. Like the neighbors of the Nash family. When they were evicted, they showed how they hugged and said goodbye to them, but they did not tell about the neighbors themselves.
A very important point is that the hero of Garfield lives with his mother, that is, he does not have a wife. He's raising his son alone. You don't see that often in movies. And thanks to this, the film does not have this love line and standard experiences, as if the hero of Garfield, in the development of the plot, joined the rich society and met there with some girl, and his wife would then arrange tantrums at home and so on. No, that's not in the movie and that's good. Because it's annoying.
The film has a wonderful ending. This is one of the best roles of Andrew Garfield at the moment.
7 out of 10
Unfortunately, the film did not impress at all. In my opinion, this is a very weak job.
Andrew Garfield, who plays the main role here, noticeably tries, but it is impossible to believe in the incredible transformations of his character. The point, it seems, is not even that he dramatically changes the “side of the barricades”. This, of course, happens in real life. But in the film this important transition is shown, in my opinion, not convincingly. There is a lack of authenticity, sharpness of experiences, live dynamics. Changes in the personality of the main character seem far-fetched. His throwing and doubts look like a conditional fabricated construction. I want to have real passions!
It's a pity it turned out so "cardboard." The topic is very interesting: dashing real estate fraud, mortgaged private houses, aggressive evictions of poor families, theft, forgery of documents, squeezed property, corrupt judges and officials playing golf with business leaders. It could be a great thrilling crime drama. And the place of action was chosen successfully - a sunny state: palm trees, swimming pools and vulgar tortilla villas that once belonged to celebrities. But the direction and script were closer to the format of a medium-sized television series, rather than a high-quality feature film. However, this did not prevent the tape from earning prestigious film awards. I am sure that the developed social vector of this film played a role here.
And the last good thing. The role of the main Mr. villain was chosen by a wonderful actor - Michael Shannon. So the authors were able to create a very colorful character on the screen. You really believe him. This well-played role is perhaps the only real plus of the movie “99 houses”.
I noticed this film during the film marathon at the Venice festival last year, but then the film could not find. I really regret it because I love Andrew Garfield. It’s good that he’s here now and I’ve finally been able to appreciate him.
I am surprised that the film is not based on real events. When you look, you get the impression that this is the case. The dark tone of the narrative, the electronic music that goes into trance, almost constantly make it clear that we are facing drama. I am glad that Andrew has tried on a new and rather difficult role. He did it very, very well. I don't understand why they didn't celebrate his performance. Shannon with the face of a born polished scumbag, without dispute, deserved his Globe nomination, but Andrew was nothing worse, believe me. Brilliant play. Thanks to this role, he became not just a comic book hero, he became an actor with a claim. And I'm very happy. The only thing is that it is very hard to believe that the hero Garfield, with his boyish appearance, has a rather adult son. Oh, come on. Sometimes they become fathers at 16. We will think that this is so, especially in the film about this story is silent.
Otherwise, someone, of course, can condemn the main character for his actions, I can not. The man acted out of desperation, because he had to feed his son. This is not the worst and dirty job you can think of. Out of desperation, some go to the panel, and to murder. Not really. Nobody's insured. Of course, he makes a deal with his conscience, but his goals are noble - to return the house to his family. And seeing what a good father he is, I repeat, I cannot judge him at all.
It is almost impossible to judge who is the worst in this film. Both the government and the realtors are imperfect. I don't know who's worse. As usual, ordinary people suffer. Well, he always suffers. I think the idea is that the notorious American dream, which is supposedly available to everyone, you just want to, in fact is not available to everyone. Losers are left behind. Becoming a winner is not always an honest way. Too bad. But of course, there is justice, there is justice in moral terms: it triumphs when your conscience is clear to yourself first and to your relatives second. If you have one, of course.
In general, the drama turned out to be strong, with an exciting denouement, Garfield is very happy, Shannon is also good, but something elusive I lacked in the middle of the film, so I’ll lower my grade a little, leaving the review positive:
6 out of 10
Although the film is based on the story of the American father evicted from the house, and later became the same executioner for others, the filmmakers decided not to play with the now fashionable prologue “Based on real events”, thus allowing the viewer to understand that they will not be told fairy tales.
This project looks more gloomy in the eyes of ordinary Americans, where most of the population of the country exist as nomads and are deprived of the familiar concept of home. This film is about what actually makes them nomads and what people are sometimes at the helm.
One could scold a whole system that allows this, but director Ramin Bahrani turned out to be a slightly correct director, and decided not to sow darkness on the country that gave him shelter and professional development. Ramin Bahrani rather shows the public food chain for the viewer, where the meaning is very clear - if you want to be successful, go and take it. Success is not enough for everyone, so choose.
Many guilds and awards have honored Michael Shannon for this film, but this is a slightly mistaken summary. Yes, Shannon was good, as in most of his projects, but this film is Andrew Garfield's and only his. As a result, the most powerful acting game of two actors, an exciting topic and a high-quality production of the director. For lovers of strong and independent dramas.
One of my surprises was 99 Houses. Ramin Bahrani, accurate, strong, topical, are a fusion of quality, sound, financial thriller with court drama. The fear of losing the most expensive property, housing.
Whose content Bahrani pumps up at a good pace, with an internal drive, the picture, welded on very serious bells, looks fresh and new. Although, in reality, a little reminiscent of Perelman’s House of Sand and Fog, with the only difference, Bahrani draws out the anger of people who have lost their homes.
The starting point is a scene with a corpse, where in a few seconds he comes on stage, an actor whose talent is able to pull any picture, His Holiness former General Zod, Michael Shannon. Just his participation in the role of arrogant scum smoking an electronic cigarette, an additional point in the treasury of the merits of the film. It is nice to see Andrew Garfield, who changed the range of roles of teenagers, to a simple handyman from the construction site, who lost his house to the court, without paying the entire amount on the loan, played big and hard. Now the single father, will have to work with the one who evicted him from his home to the street, the realtor turned out to have a conscience.
Both characters are symbols of a problem close both to Americans and to a Russian man (Zvyagintsev’s Leviathan). In addition to everything, there is a beautiful soundtrack by Anthony Partos and Matteo Zingales, as well as camera work by Bobby Bukowski (“Price of Passion”).
The kind of movies where you unwittingly clench your fists when you see what's happening in the frame: evictions, nerves, injustice, financial crisis. The movie ends up hitting, like an electronic discharge, in the right place, making you wake up, realizing that the world is still cruel, and the dollar still has tremendous power over human nature. To top it all off, the question is, "Are you willing to do this?" If that happens. To get your home back.
What property are we most afraid of losing? Of course, our home. But it is one thing to lose one’s home due to non-payment of taxes or any utilities, and quite another to fall victim to the modern unstable economy. Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) lives with his mother and son in their family home, where more than one of their generations grew up. He works as a builder, and during the construction of the base of the house, a foreman bursts into the site with cries calling for the cessation of all work. The company-customer went bankrupt, there will be no salary not only for today, but for the whole month. Nash needs money more than ever, on top of everything, he is summoned to court over the inability to pay his mortgage on time, and notified of his imminent eviction.
Rick Carver (Michael Shannon) is a real scumbag, greedy and soulless realtor. He wears expensive suits, a gold watch on his right hand and a gun, just in case. Carver has long been in this thankless, but very profitable business, so managed to make a considerable fortune. It is not difficult to guess, Carver and Nash were destined to meet. Nash is heartlessly plucked with his family from his home nest into the street. Do you think he's gonna hate Carver with all his heart, who invaded their house and reported the eviction with a cold face? It's not that simple. Nash desperately needs a job, and by accident, he came exactly where he needed it and when he needed it. And he turned up to Carver, who urgently needed someone to do the dirty work (very dirty - to clean the house with the blown sewer, or what happened to it) for a decent amount of money. Gradually, Nash and Carver work together, and the latter offers Dennis to do exactly the same real estate business as him. And when he agrees, a personal war begins to rage inside him - greed and money against compassion and mercy. What will take over?
The 99 Houses is a modern economic parabola. We see the hero living happily in his own home (the point of departure), and then he is abruptly deprived of all this – both happiness and home. He's at the bottom of the parabola. But then he climbs up and gets to a realtor making a lot of money. He's on top of the parabola. The most remarkable thing about the film is that the director and screenwriter Ramin Bahrani did not limit himself to just a couple of movements on the actual created parabola, at some point we can even clearly trace how this parabola splits into a graph of the economic situation of the hero and his mental state. In general, the script involves in what is happening from the very first minutes. This is achieved due to the abundant change of events that happen to the main character. First we see him in court, then at work they say that there will be no payments, bailiffs come to his house to evict him, then search for temporary housing, employment and so on. And all this happens in the first third of the film, given that Shannon's character is given plenty of time. The director cut all unnecessary phrases and scenes that do not carry any semantic load. It seems that everything in the film goes on as usual and without any unnecessary information – we observe the history in development, without going back to the past, deviations towards relationships with other people or going beyond the economic aspect of the story. There's Nash and his family, Carver and his family, and their clients. Nothing superfluous. A movie with a great balance.
A particularly dramatic effect was achieved using a “documentary” style of filming during the eviction of people, especially families with children or elderly citizens. It’s like watching some TV show on this subject, but without a bit of doubt about the truth of what is happening, even being sure that this is a movie. But here still played a huge role actors. Garfield and Laura Dern, who portrayed Dennis’ mother on the screen, look extremely convincing, protecting their property from bailiffs. As far as Garfield is concerned, it’s quite amusing to watch him play the father of a relatively large child (aged 10), as Andrew’s looks are very boyish. No matter how much he grows a beard and arrogantly smokes a cigarette, he still looks like a second-year student. However, in terms of drama, Garfield played great, not being very familiar with the filmography of the actor, yet I think that he has never played more than anywhere else. Perhaps it is even better that the superhero did not work out, as a very promising dramatic actor appeared on the horizon. This year, he is likely to simply not stand the competition in the nomination for the main male role, but next year, under the auspices of Martin Scorsese, he will certainly have chances. Michael Shannon is very likely to be in the top five nominees this year for the background. Shannon, unlike his younger partner in the film, has nothing to prove, his Carver turned out to be multifaceted, which only needs to silently look, smoking an electronic cigarette, at a person to reconcile with his fate.
The 99 Houses could be seen as a potential contestant in the Oscar race, especially for acting. Bahrani managed to write a tight, balanced script and artfully shoot it, gradually pulling the viewer’s nerves into the coil of narration, which at first even imperceptibly, but by the end paralyzes the viewer in anticipation of the denouement of the story.