So movie's about 1st-world problems?

So wouldn't every movie in the first world be about first world problems?

I agree with OP. So many movies are about hard-to-fathom rich people. The premise for this one was ridiculous, not comedically, but in a way that the rich filmmakers don't seem to appreciate. There were some mitigating factors:

- Who is this screw-up (the mom sister) who's so lucky to always find a social safety net?
[ at least it's part of the plot that the 'responsible' sister is a big part of that ]

- Who are these people who seem to never have to worry about drug use?
[ at least the sisters had the sensible system of 'party mom.' but i can't help but notice that, in movies at least and maybe also in real life beyond my experience, a bunch of drunk/drugged mostly white people and cops showing up is supposed to be good times, while a bunch of drunk/drugged mostly black people and cops showing up equals scary times? that's loaded, i know, and economic assumptions will weight it more. my simplest interpretation is that richer and/or whiter people get away with things, they can 'afford it' personally/socially/literally, especially contrasted with the deep-rooted stereotype of the dangerous black man.]

- Who are these mansion-owners with untouched childhood homes and savings to bequeath?
[ of course, the economic class over-represented in pop culture, including most of the big-housed sitcom families I watched as a kid ]

It was a popcorn movie good for my plane ride, but I always get the feeling the people who create these sorts of story line run in elite circles, and it shows.

Related: it was fun to see the Korean salon workers take a prominent role in the film, I enjoyed that. As side characters and a joke source it was still the default, people-of-color-peripheral-to-the-central-white-people kind of view, and maybe it trafficked a little in "accented immigrant" stereotypes, as comedies do. But I appreciated the symmetric joke where Heywan (not sure how to spell) kept on messing up Maura's name, and that her character went on to have a role at the party not completely related to stereotype baggage.

I can see your headline as a little incendiary to many ("1st world problems") but I agree 100% in spirit and also can't help but notice the white+relatively rich monotony in movies. It's dissolving over time, but still definitely dominant!

In other words, "white folks' problems?" I have always hated that response. Just as all lives matter, all people have problems and it is our empathy or lack thereof that defines whom we are.

It is indeed another film about 1st World problems. Your criticism is true, but it doesn't really strike at anything, because the film isn't really trying to justify or attack anything political.

It's supposed to be like one of those affluent kids, 80s, teen party style movies - except now all the kids are older (but not grown up exactly)

It's not about how rich or poor you are, it's about selling a family memory, a place that they grew up in. It's the same as when I visit my mom's family and go by the place where my grandparents' lived. They have torn down the house and all the trees are gone and the only thing still there is the creek. I stop by every year to see it and it tears my heart out that the home is gone and I can't step foot in it and say 'remember when?'. That's what the sisters are upset about. It's closing a book that can't be reopened.

Notice how you don't see a lot of movies about poor people anymore unless it's a rags to riches story, that's because most people are middle class or poor and they don't like watching real world problems they have to deal with in everyday life in the movies too unless it's a drama.

When the war in Iraq was a thing, the major issue was almost every movie in that setting tanked horribly. I heard they even edited a trailer of a comedy to not show a character in army gear. It was that bad.

Long story short, they made them rich specifically to make the plot as care free as possible.

No one Gives it to you...you have to take it

It's about 2 sisters upset about losing their childhood home, both of whom need to be more mature, so they learn to let go of physical "places and things". But it's just an excuse for people to do and say funny things. Has nothing really to do with economics, really, other than the background.

People with "third world problems" would love to have "first world problems", so stop trying to make people feel guilty for not being dirt poor. IDK your age, but sounds like you need to grow up.

Someone once said to me, "We all suffer equally". Meaning, life's a bitch for everyone, and regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, economic background, life is hard for everyone, in some fashion or other, none escape it. We all get lonely, scared, desperate, etc. And why you chose this film to make a stand about First world problems is beyond me.

i find some of the responses to your post absurd and laughable.

like the person who said first world problems = white people's problems, as though only white people live in the first world. well i am black and live in england, so you know...BS.

then there is the one who suggests that we all have problems, as though all problems are of equal severity. i should imagine that j-lo has some challenges but i doubt they compare to those of say, someone experiencing modern slavery.

quite right, OP, it was hard to relate to the difficulties of these women, because they were shallow, duplicitous and self absorbed. they clearly rarely made use of that childhood home, and surely they should be appreciative of the fact that their parents were together, healthy and able to make plans for the latter part of their lives? but no. instead, they decided to let the house get trashed, until, for one of them, it became of value because she was expecting to get some cash out of it. they were vulgar, selfish and obnoxious women. i found this film quite unpleasant tbh.