...says Freeman's character.
Yet they own an apartment worth a million dollars and have just spent 10 grand on their dog.
I think they *beep* are.
right on -- the most exasperating couple on the planet
gad what a horrible movie
They ARE rich for that one (or two) days during the bidding wars, thus telling the Vet to 'do whatever it takes'. Or merely FEELING rich . . .
Don't give credence to the bad reviews. This film is a work of art as genuine and beautiful as their 5th floor walk up. The details of the real estate transaction are spot on. And the open-house guests are mostly irritating *as intended*. Great acting and directing. When you are handed a gem like this, enjoy!!
[in Brooklyn real estate since 1967]
--
SPOILERS BELOW:
If there were any ramifications at all following their decision to spend $10,000 on a dog that, frankly, looks like its gonna keel over at any minute I might have liked this a bit more. But there weren't. They fork out that cash, keep their apartment and things just go an as before.
Wheres the drama in that? Theres no jeopardy, sacrifice - nothing. Just a couple of well off types having not all that much happen to them and doing not much about it.
First World problems!
I liked this movie very much also.
I'm a big fan of Freeman's and Keaton's work.
Also, was a Manhattanite for 50 years, and was relatively familiar with Brooklyn
Short Cut, Draw Blood
A million dollars for a condo is not uncommon. You don't have to be rich, but you do need to have a good source of income. What I wanted to know was where did the couple get their income? Morgan Freeman was an artist whose paintings weren't selling. And I had no idea what Diane Keaton used to do for a living.
What I wanted to know was where did the couple get their income? Morgan Freeman was an artist whose paintings weren't selling.
And I had no idea what Diane Keaton used to do for a living.
Even if they had a Million dollars of equity - in New York - that is far from rich.
shareMy biggest problem with the film too! They were obviously rich, so all the back and forth drove me nuts. Of course I know a lot of rich people who would let their dog die, and poor people who would give their lives for their dog (I fall in to the latter category)... I just could't figure these two out.
shareThey were obviously rich
It's all perspective.
I'm living in Alaska in a 30 yr old RV that doesn't have running water, the fridge doesn't work, I could go on and on
I think I live pretty poorly, but then I see people living in tents for the summer, and oh how they'd be thrilled to have my rv to live in/drive.
Everybody reading this, even if you only make $10 an hour, and you think 'I'm not rich' - most definitely there are many many people on this planet who would think that's ridiculous, just like many of us think it ridiculous that this NY couple could ever think they're 'not rich' while paying $10k to possibly let their dog live a few more years.
As you explain well, you can be "rich" (and happy) without being wealthy and you can be wealthy without being "rich" (or happy). It is all about perspective.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.
This line of discussion is so silly I can hardly think of what to say. For one thing, a million dollars is not that much money today, but more importantly, the value of what you own does not make you rich (as others here have said). Especially when the thing(s) you own is a life necessity. If they owned a 1 million dollar painting along with having a place to live I would then agree. They do not NEED the painting and selling it would not alter their lives and they could therefore have a million dollars. When you live somewhere, however expensive the cost of living, for 40 years, and you want to continue living there, the value of the house is not wealth that can be considered toward being "rich". As so easily pointed out in the movie, they were going to have to buy another house and they would have been right back to where they were financially, which was NOT RICH. For those who think spending $10K on a pet proves some kind of wealth, you obviously are not a real animal lover, I know people who would go into great debt for a pet without blinking an eye. They never said that the $10K was going to be easy for them. They even reacted pretty noticeably to the $1K for the CAT scan. They would be rich if they could have purchased the other house WITHOUT selling theirs first and it was obvious that they couldn't.
Let's say you owned a business that afforded you a $100,000 annual profit which was enough for your family to live own without any extravagance, and the business was worth 3 million dollars if you sold it. Sure, you would then have 3 million dollars, and no income. Bottom line, the value of that business does not make the family "rich".
"a million dollars is not that much money today"
Speak for yourself.
They don't really have that million. It's in their apartment, which they have to replace and actually spend more on. They never had the million to begin with as they bought into a rough neighborhood cheap and it improved over the years.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
They could rent a place - is that such a terrible indignity? Most people do.
They own something that is worth $1m. In percentage terms how many people in this world own anything worth that?
About 1% of the world. I have no idea if they could find a place like that to rent and what it would cost. Probably $35,000 to $50,000 a year or more. That's like flushing all that money down the toilet.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
Not NY is thAt considered rich. Property can go for millions easily. They probably bought it for practically nothing. They were there for 40 years and the apartment is worth a million now. They are property rich but not millionaires. They are just middle class New Yorkers.
shareYes, that's been discussed. And as I said, even if they chose to sell and rent, they would eat up that money in rent and not have it for their old age.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
Even if you live in a Condo the montly fees would eat up a nest egg. People have to go upstate to find something reasonable. But looking at the end of the movie I wonder why didn;t they just move to the apartment on the ground floor.
shareI don't think condo fees would be that bad, I assume that's what they are doing owning the apartment. Is owning an apt. different than a condo? But buying an apartment on the ground was probably not desirable to them. Probably loud and smelly with no view.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
The apartment is only worth a million NOW - they were on the poor side when they moved in.
And I'm definitely not rich - but I've found ways to pay thousands for my pets over the years, too. You do what you need to do.
🐈 Rachel