MovieChat Forums > The Descendants (2011) Discussion > Did anyone else think this was just plai...

Did anyone else think this was just plain terrible?


-Awful narration and dialogue
-The plot was overflowing with cliches
-Most of the characters were simply stereotypes
-The story had absolutely no direction (the whole bit about the land had absolutely nothing to do with the plot about the wife)
-The "humor" was just plain shock value. This wasn't a dramedy; it was a drama with cussing and violence that I was apparently supposed to laugh at.

I could go into more detail, but really, I just want to know if other people also thought it was terrible. I think this is easily the worst movie I've seen this year (and I watched No Strings Attached and Gnomeo And Juliet). (EDIT: I just watched Thor. Thus, my last comment is no longer valid.) I saw this with two other friends, and when we left the theater, before I told them what I thought, I asked them what they thought, and they both said it was really bad.

How this has a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes than The Help, Beginners, Jane Eyre, Barney's Version, etc. is beyond me.

reply

Hard to argue with OP.

reply

hard to argue with wscott4106. Absolutely 100% TERRIBLE!! God I hated this movie. 2 long hours I'll never get back

reply

I thought that the film was a lot better than I expected.

reply

I'm 40 and this film seemed to me as the weakest in the filmography of the otherwise brilliant Alexander Payne... 4 out of 10 for an stereotyped, boring, cliched hollywood dramedy.

To make it even worse, my wife passed away about a year ago and the way death was depicted in this film was irritating and disturbingly irreal.

reply

[deleted]

There is nothing original or ground breaking about it, its soo overrated.

It has been done before, all they did was put George Clooney in it (who always plays the same bland character). The Help and War Horse are much better films in every way.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]


I love how the OP complains the land subplot had nothing to do with the wife?!? Sometimes I wonder why people bother going to the movies at all if they can't pay attention.

This film was sharply written, with rich full characters; and a crisp fresh originality.

I had one small problem ...... how the friends were so confident Elizabeth was going to leave Matt for Brian, when Brian was already married with a family of his own!! HELLO?!?

Otherwise well done... I think a win for "Best Adapted Screenplay" is in order.

8 Stars.


"the best that you can do is fall in love"

reply

[deleted]

This was terrible - yes! Just plain terrible. Stupid.

reply

1. There is no chemistry between boyfriend and girlfriend. zero mark.
2. Tranformation of elder daughter and boyfriend are cliche and forceful.
3. Audience gave a damn (no empathy) for not selling property as a trustee.
4. George Clooney is outstanding but he has no competitor in film's conflict.
5. All other characters are stereotype.
6. What if an unknown actor gets a chance in place of hollywood superstar George Clooney, It would be a festival film without any Oscar or Golden Globe Awards Nominaions.
7. Screenwriter's adaptation from a novel needs much more improvement in characters development, subplots and comedy.

reply

"no chemistry between boyfriend and girlfriend"

This is not a love story about them. The lack of chemistry as you call it made a point you obviously missed. The older daughter was alienated from her mother and the mostly absent father. She was making a poor choice in her boyfriend, whose very unsuitability was emblematic of her alienation. you missed it.

"Transformation" - how cliched? I frankly felt this film was notable for exploring what appear on the surface to be "normal" family and other relations in a non-cliched way.

"(no empathy) for not selling property" - speak for yourself. Actually the film was not about how one choice or the other was clearly the right choice with the opposite all wrong. It was precisely the need to weigh conflicting and competing claims and arguments, and do so within this expanding conflict in Clooney's character's personal life, that gave it context to make its point. The point ( should say this point - the film made a few) is how does one deal with one's search for meaning in life while the fundamentals of one's most basic connections with those around us are challenged and put to question? Life does not allow putting everything on hold at such times, in at least most such cases. Given the realization of the wife's impending death, why not choose to make the clear majority of your relatives happy, and happier with you, and feel good about it? Well, because you see that in so doing, you're also seeking some short term gratification that will destroy something else entirely, that here being our responsibiities as stewards of nature.

(Now of course for a variety of reasons one can be skeptical of such a consideration, but imo it was and is a legitimate consideration and was properly presented in the film.)

"Clooney is outstanding but he has no competitor in film's conflict"

At least you recognize an excellent performance. But the "competitor" in fact while not a single person is really a situation created by his dying wife, her "lover", the wife's having let his family slide while he was also for different reasons not tending to it, in the larger context of the issues that exist outside his immediate family - the aging mother in law and the father in law's response providing a comparitor in dealing with impending death and decay, the larger family dynamics under pressure from the pending land deal, etc. That whole context is what he is "competing" against. Which really means he is seeking to have his own behavior meet a standard of honor the details of which he himself understands in an evolving way.

"All other characters are stereotype." I don't know what you are talking about. Please provide a basis for this generalized and unsupported condemnation.

"What if an unknown actor" This complaint sounds like so much inside baseball, as if you have some personal agenda in this regard. In any event, the what if point is beside the point. I see nothing wrong with an actor beign recognized somewhat along in his career for being more talented than previously was widely recognized. I myself used to discount Clooney as a tv doctor trying his hand at films. So? He clearly has moved beyong that. And people, his peers and critics and others, recognize that. It's all good.

"adaptation from a novel needs much more improvement" For all the importance of screenwriting, it is only one element in films. This film I thought had more than sufficient context and character development. You apparently thought it failed to meet your standards.

Any specific suggestions, or do you just want to make a purely subjective argument and leave it at that?

reply

Allow me to retort:

"no chemistry between boyfriend and girlfriend"

This is not a love story about them. The lack of chemistry as you call it made a point you obviously missed. The older daughter was alienated from her mother and the mostly absent father. She was making a poor choice in her boyfriend, whose very unsuitability was emblematic of her alienation. you missed it.


- It makes no difference whether this is a love story about them or science fiction story about an asteroid about to destroy the earth. Characters and their actions in every story or film have to be believable so that we can preserve what is called "suspension of disbelief". When film fails in that respect, as this one did many times, than we are not really immersed in the story, we are annoyed by it. Zero chemistry between the two young actors, while at the same time she claims to love him is laughably unbelievable, and leaves an impression of a plot device, just to make the film more interesting.

"(no empathy) for not selling property" - speak for yourself.


Actually, I too felt the same way. If someone is dying, and the whole situation is complicated by an alcoholic daughter, idiot kid and few other problems on the side such as wife's-been-cheating deal, than property part of the story is way low on the priority scale for any viewer, except those who are not distrubed by dying spouses and ruined children. Add to that the fact that we see nothing of substance that would make him change his mind and the whole property deal is - meh... couldn't care less.


"All other characters are stereotype." I don't know what you are talking about. Please provide a basis for this generalized and unsupported condemnation.


Stereotypes are characters who bring nothing new, who are one-dimensional and un-original. All characters in this film were stereotypical, Clooney's included. How many times have you seen stupid boyfriends, or addicted daughters, or badly behaving kids, or cheating wives? The only not-so-stereotypical part was showing brain-dead woman's face for ever and ever and ever... NOt to mention that even stereotypical characters can be presented in an interesting way, but this film fails there too. The older daugther makes a swtich from an irresponsible adict to quite a mature human being, with no character trasnformation that is visible or believable. Same for Clooney, and the same goes for everyone else. The boyfriend is an idiot, and he stays the idiot, except when it suits the director, he less of an idiot. (Great acting by him though!)


"adaptation from a novel needs much more improvement" For all the importance of screenwriting, it is only one element in films. This film I thought had more than sufficient context and character development. You apparently thought it failed to meet your standards.


First of all, not every novel or story is easily made into a film. Actually, it is quite difficult to do it right, if nothing else, than at least because of completely different medium used to tell the story (page of words vs. big screen with moving pictures and sound). But above all, this film fails in illustrating why those characters have changed, if they have, and what their motivations are, and how they went through those transformations. I can list cazillion other films, much less pretentious than this one, where a character change is much more believable and satisfying then in "The Descendants".
Watch for instance another film with Clooney "One Fine Day" and Michelle Pfeiffer change from an arrogant perfectionist to a little more approachable woman when she is humbled by her own mistake of loosing his... (don't want to spoil it). And we believe her change because some of that humbleness was already present, under the surface. Showing growth in characters takes a lot more careful planning and writing than just showing a young teen drunk in one scene, and perfectly sober and rational in another.

Any specific suggestions, or do you just want to make a purely subjective argument and leave it at that?


While I know the above was not meant for me, I think that my reply gives plenty of specifics.

reply

47 years old. I thought it was a good solid film. Well cast, strong acting, nice music, thought provoking. Possibly a little slow, maybe overrated as I was expecting something amazing given the hype but I wasn't disappointed overall. And yes, Clooney plays it the same way over and over again. He does it well I guess.

You want boring horribleness? Try In Time.

reply

Yeah, this was a very good film. I don't think its overrated, I just think its very subtle. Its a film that probably needs multiple viewings, because there is a lot of depth.

As far as Clooney goes, this is a standout performance.

reply

[deleted]

Great response! I would add that we don't know if Alex and her male friend are even romantically linked, or just close friends. I sort of felt the later. In any case, there is no need for any "chemistry" between them.

As far as there "not being any empathy about the decision not to sell the land", I disagree. Its there, its just not a major theme of the film, just a complementary sub-plot.

There are many subtle details in this film. But they are all important and necessary in understanding the big picture.

Why does Clooney need a competitor in the story? That's a very narrow way of looking at literature/film. Maybe his wife is his competitor? A far as the final outcome of the narrative, something as seemingly unimportant as a father gaining a healthy and loving realtionship with his daughters, is in fact, very powerful, and trumps everything else in the film.

This is a superb screen adaptation period. It doesn't really get a whole lot better.

Who's High Pitch?

reply

[deleted]

u mad bro?

reply

The land deal and the wife's affair were tied in because of the lover's role in it. They should have left in the part in the book where the wife was pushing Matt to take that deal and behind his back she was going to shareholder meeting and pushing other relatives to also take the deal. She was never interested in any of Matt's business dealings, so he wondered why she cared so much until he found out about the lover. He mainly nixed the deal because of it.

Most people are so ungrateful to be alive, but not you. Not anymore.
~Saw~

reply