MovieChat Forums > The Company Men (2011) Discussion > Good movie... but ridiculous.

Good movie... but ridiculous.


The Company Men is a good movie - great performances, strong writing, strong directing, etc... but it does push the bounds of reality to the near extreme.

Losing a job is bad for anyone regardless of your income class. You live according to your means and when your means are lost, your life loses it's crutches and comes crashing down. But the rate in which Bobby Walker's (Ben Affleck) life goes into distress is unbelievable.

Most stable households put savings aside and one would assume that the bigger the income, the bigger the savings. He likely had stock options, definitely had a mortgage, and even had his wife working as a nurse after he was fired. It is completely implausible that so shortly after the end of his severance, they were forced to sell their house (in a crashed economy and real estate market) and that Bobby had to work for his brother-in-law as a carpenter. I mean, I understand the message, but come on... laying it on a little thick?

My mother was part of the big downsizing period of the early-90's and took years to recover, all while raising 3 children as a single parent in the suburbs. Did we have to make cuts? Yes. Did we have to sell our house? Definitely not. John Wells, the writer and director, is certainly not writing from experience. The whole situation, and the plight of the characters, would be more believable if they were earning middle-class income, and lived more paycheque-to-paycheque.

The funniest part is that this movie spent $15 million and earned $4.37 mil at the box office. So even with all the morals and messages, they spent millions on their solid cast and locations, when they could have spent a fraction and got the same reviews/acclaim. Yikes.

reply

OP, are you stoopid?

reply

>>one would assume that the bigger the income, the bigger the savings.

Not necessarily. The more one makes the tendency is to spend more. Let's take the character Walker as an example. Let's say, in alternative universe, he didn't join a country club, he didn't buy a Porsche and instead drove a Honda Civic, he didn't eat out daily, his dry cleaning was half of $600 (as mentioned in the movie) and he didn't go on expensive vacations. Besides his kids tuition, thing that would be of great expense would his house mortgage. He's still spending much more on that house than he would if he didn't earn a salary that allowed to pay the monthly mortgages before his termination.

Even in real life. Actors who make their living solely on acting and earn mad dough ... they most likely have a McMansion. (I always wonder if they themselves sit down and write the checks for their mortgages or if they have some financial adviser doing their daily billings ... ) And all the stories of entertainers going into debt? When one makes more money they tend to spend more money - sometimes to a degree where they loose tract of their expenses. Take for instance Tom Felton. I believe he confessed he spent most of his HP money. Like wtf?!

2014: Whiplash, Cold in July, that Terrence Malick project set in Austin

reply