MovieChat Forums > The Accountant (2016) Discussion > Not quite sure why critics are panning t...

Not quite sure why critics are panning this movie


I mean, it's not an Oscar winner but as entertainment I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think one reason being it's not your usual shallow, one dimensional Hollywood action/thriller

reply

That reason seems to be the one that most of we admirers have settled on. The other reason is that it doesn't portray autism in the way they think is accurate ; or that it does, and that makes it mocking.

reply

Good movies promote themselves. Word of mouth, etc. and the next thing you know...disaster. People like this movie more than other movies. They buy this one and watch it 20 times, instead of wasting money on 20 crappy movies.

Hollywood accounting is pretty amazing, but you still have to level things out with excess promotion of garbage, and paid trolls ripping any decent movie.

Did you want to talk about conspiracy or are you just here for a discussion? ;-)

reply

paid [ my bold ] trolls ripping any decent movie

I hadn't thought of that, I thought they just did it for fun. Makes sense though.

reply

> I think one reason being it's not your usual shallow, one dimensional Hollywood action/thriller

Did we watch the same movie?

It was exactly that. The only reason it was entertaining is because of the impeccable technical production values and a skilled cast. But story-telling? Yet another boring pile of hollywood tropes and non-sensical coincidences.

For example:

1. Who was the british woman on the phone? She's just a prop.
2. The two brothers just happen to run into each other while on opposite sides of a fight (I don't know about you, but I saw that a mile off because hollywood)
3. What part of his moral code explains all the times he phones in tips?
4. What moral code does he even have? All I saw was something about not being a victim and putting family first
5. How did either brother get into their respective businesses? Yeah he said he became an accountant because its a growing profession, but that doesn't explain working for criminals
6. Why kill Dana? She wasn't going to make trouble the way Wolff might.
7. Hiring an expensive private security team to defend an empty and vulnerable house instead of just moving to a securable building for a couple of weeks - guy didn't even have a family to uproot, just himself
8. Megalomaniacal villain gives monologue and then immediately gets his just deserts and is killed

I could go on, but it should be obvious. The story was poorly conceived and cliched. It only worked because of good pacing, good sets and the cast's ability to wring every last drop of character out of such thinly written roles.

reply

Other posters say the actors were terrible, and ugly. At least you disagreed with that.

reply

1. Who was the british woman on the phone? She's just a prop.


OMG, she wasn't British, and it showed who she was at the end--a very neat twist.

2. The two brothers just happen to run into each other while on opposite sides of a fight (I don't know about you, but I saw that a mile off because hollywood)


So, you noticed an incredible coincidence a mile off. Which is it? And, btw, Braxton comments on that very coincidence at the end.

3. What part of his moral code explains all the times he phones in tips?


The same moral code undercover agents use.

4. What moral code does he even have? All I saw was something about not being a victim and putting family first


Those he killed were in self-defense, except for the 9 he killed at the Ravenite Club in an example of vigilante justice, which the story shows was deserved.

5. How did either brother get into their respective businesses? Yeah he said he became an accountant because its a growing profession, but that doesn't explain working for criminals


He was brought to the Treasury detention center where he "did the work of 5 men" helping them in their investigations. And of course, that's where he met Francis who passed on his knowledge and experience in criminal accounting. And it really isn't important how Braxton got into doing what he did--how do any of them get into it? You're really reaching for something, anything, to criticize.

6. Why kill Dana? She wasn't going to make trouble the way Wolff might.


She already had caused trouble "sticking her nose in where she shouldn't have", and Wolff showed her the full story behind what she'd discovered.

7. Hiring an expensive private security team to defend an empty and vulnerable house instead of just moving to a securable building for a couple of weeks - guy didn't even have a family to uproot, just himself


Braxton told him he should leave the country, but Blackburn is irrational. Only a moron would go in unarmed to face two armed assailants, one who came there to kill him, and try to convince them of the justice of his actions, like having his own sister and best friend killed.

8. Megalomaniacal villain gives monologue and then immediately gets his just deserts and is killed


Yes, see above. And the justice of it consistently gets the biggest laugh of the movie.

I could go on,


You need to start first.

... but it should be obvious. The story was poorly conceived and cliched. It only worked because of good pacing, good sets and the cast's ability to wring every last drop of character out of such thinly written roles.




The script is in the form of a puzzle that's complex but tight as a drum. The casting was perfect. I was thinking that the music (a big thing for me) was mostly boilerplate, but it ended up emphasizing the powerful song at the end. The hidden in plain sight messages concerning the Pollock painting are exquisite, and as far as I know, a first for Hollywood.

reply

> OMG, she wasn't British, and it showed who she was at the end--a very neat twist.

So it was the autistic girl using the computer's voice. That one got by me, I just assumed that whole denouement was about explaining that he gave his millions to that facility because he knew the girl when he was a kid.

Not really a twist though.

> You need to start first.

You seem exceptionally invested in this movie. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

reply

Not really a twist though.


It is if you thought, like I did, that it was an AI. But even so, it was a revelation unlike all the ones who have claimed to have known that his brother was Braxton.

You seem exceptionally invested in this movie.


Guilty as charged, it buried my OCD needle. I think this puzzle is the most perfect movie I've ever seen, and my second favorite after Her, which had parts I didn't like that much, making it not as rewatchable, but the subject matter was awesome deep.

reply

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, but I really hated Her. Interesting how that works...

reply

Believe it or not, there is a lot of science in Her, including the implications of self-aware AI, and some irony, like which "her" was the title character? Most people think it was Samantha, but I think it was Amy. And of course the lack of serious action and reliance on dialogue was a big turn off for many. The Accountant has dialogue AND action, and a lot of low key/dark humor, a lot of which doesn't get much of a laugh, like the segue to "Crazy Eddie and the Panama Pump!". Crazy indeed.

reply

I loved it ; but any movie based on a Stephen King book is sure to be good.

[ high 5 ]

reply

i thought the same thing, it was one of the few things that got me intrigued, i was asking the same thing throughout the whole movie. is it an AI, and did he use it as a form of something to communicate with, did he go all the way to finding such a program for that reason? all i knew from the get go is that it was computer based voice, and it was a fun twist in the end. his brother though was cliche and unoriginal, just a means to show us what his brother was up to after the flash back scenes. maybe some people guessed it earlier but it became obvious to me when he sat in the cameras. i did enjoy the movie quite a lot, 7-8/10.

reply

Haha, look at this weak cop-out. You got called out, and owned... just admit it.

reply

Not really. He seems to stick by his convictions. He admitted he screwed up about the girl. Maybe he just doesn't find it necessary to argue.

Those who don't believe in magic will never find it -RD

reply

You have no idea what you are talking about. Your examples are ridiculous. None of them support what you are trying to say.

reply

For the sake of conversation, I am responding to your comment. You have an opinion, and I respect it. I wonder do you analyze all movies like you do The Accountant? There are flaws is most stories if you look hard enough. I think this movie was different because how many movies are made about an accountant who happens to be an assassin? How many movies talk about accounting as a profession? How many moves are made with awesome action and a story to match? The Accountant does.

reply

1. Who was the british woman on the phone? She's just a prop.

How was it even possible to miss that?? 

5. ... Yeah he said he became an accountant because its a growing profession, but that doesn't explain working for criminals

Once again, how was it even possible to miss this??! Considering there was a whole story line about this in the movie?

You see how your opinions can be just invalidated outright?

8. Megalomaniacal villain gives monologue and then immediately gets his just deserts and is killed

Your point being...? Chris has a need to finish everything he starts, for him that was closure.


reply

It was ok, but it doesn't even deserve a 7/10.
Mindless entertainment, and that was it.
Critics will be critics.

reply

We'll just have to disagree on the 'mindless' part. It certainly wasn't Hitchcock but the plot wasn't just spoon fed to the audience like the usual 'white knuckle, larger than life villain' action/thriller drivel. It actually required you to pay attention (somewhat), put 2 & 2 together

reply

It required more than just paying attention, and maybe even seeing it several times. You had to actually think in order to see all the pieces, and in one case, a little extracurricular google research was required unless you're an actual art expert--which, if you're like most art experts, would have likely caused you to feel insulted, AND still not getting the whole Pollock thing. Hitchcock was a master of suspense, but he never came close to telling a tale with this many interlocking pieces and the complexity of The Accountant.

reply

Okay I'll bite, what was with the Pollock painting that was significant?



A simple mind is a tidy mind.

reply

An eye was added to the middle of what was otherwise just noise like, all other of Pollock's paintings. For the characters, it IS the original and fits with the autistic thread of the movie, an eye looking askance from the noise and clutter. In the song at the end (I Was Just Trying to Leave Something Behind), there's a verse saying, "I can get through the wall if you give me a door", which would have been perfect to play when she was looking at it at the end, but for some inexplicable reason, they didn't use it at all.

reply

I could've watched this movie half asleep, with one eye opened with no sound and I would've still pieced everything together. This makes movies like Face Off complex masterpieces. Which plot point/thematic exploration (or lack of) required any attention???

reply

Admit it, you slept through it. 10+/10 (I've only awarded 2 of those btw.)

reply

Entretaining at most, I gave it a 6, too many plot holes and too much fuzzy presentation of the story.

reply

they panned this movie because it was overcast, poor plot structure and Ben Affleck was in it. it was mediocre at best.

reply

It was a decent watch, but it did have that been there seen that type of feeling that a lot of movies have nowadays. These super-agent thrillers (Bourne, Taken, Equalizer, etc.) are getting a little stale imo. This one was probably toward the top of that pack in the script department.

reply

It was the tightest script ever in the action genre at least. The Equalizer and all the Takens are way off. The initial Bournes are the only comparison, and they lack the multiple, sometimes profound, and sometimes subtle, themes going on.

reply

I really enjoyed this movie because the story was different and typical. Even though I do not have autism, I share many of Christian's characteristics. Maybe the writers wanted to do a story about a shy introvert, but that would not work but a movie about a character with autism does work. I enjoyed the movie either way.

reply

It's the screenplay, thats why critics don't like this. Extensive explanation of his backstory that is hardly being used other than telling us he's autistic. Great! Also a convoluted plot with his senior accountant getting axed. Then of course the Treasury agents that serve no purpose at all and at the end of the movie have accomplished nothing. It's just not very good at all

reply