MovieChat Forums > Pacific Heights (1990) Discussion > Why should I care about these people?

Why should I care about these people?

posted 10 years ago by HarveyManfredSinJohn
12 replies | jump to latest

The film's 'heroes' are the same type of wealthy property speculators who charge exorbitant rents to their tenants and then move on to a bigger property/investment after selling their property for twice its earlier value. These people are leeches who prey on those of us who are unable to afford/get a loan for a mortgage.

The film of course tries to have us hate Carter Hayes/James Danforth by providing him with a backstory of someone even richer than Patty and Drake, as if to say "hey, it's the owners/landlords who are the salt-of-the-earth and the renters are all filthy, spendthrift scum who must have frittered all their money away". It's a 'have versus have-not' message that twists things to make the 'haves' seem like the poor victims. What hogwash! This is exactly the same trick billionaires like the Koch Brothers and the Tea Party play in assuming the role of the beleaguered 'little people' against the evil big bad government and its welfare programs.

Yeah, you read right. This is a Republican piece of crap thriller, and ultimately I can't help rooting for Hayes/Danforth against this pair of smug "I'm alright Jack" yuppies.

[–] SweetD19 10 years ago

Um....not really...

[–] Dav777 10 years ago

Ummm yeah...really. The slumlords will get theirs. Believe that. Where I'm at, these idiots leave properties empty for years at a time because they can't get their exubarant rental prices rather than negotiating a fair price. I wish there where enough Carter Haynes to fill each and everyone of them.

[–] Heidi_Smiles 9 years ago

How were they "slumlords?"

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

Firstly, why do you need to "care" about them so much? Secondly, when you put in the workload and the finances to increase the property value, it's not really "speculation". Plus, did they really plan on moving out of there in foreseeable future? I sort of seem to recall them affectionately emphacizing several times it's "their home".

facts are stupid things - Ronald Reagan

[–] RobSac 9 years ago

I rooted for Hayes, too. Patty and Drake epitomize the post 1980s success story, which is, success on the backs of the labor of others. Patty looks to have taught horseback riding, while Drake seems to have had some kind of upscale sweat shop going. There's only a quick glimpse of Drake's business as he's arguing on the phone with while trying to secure Hayes' deposit funds. The two embody a total aristocratic existence. Work is for others. They tell workers what to do, while collecting the lion's share of the profits. By investing in a city dwelling in an upscale neighborhood, they take a shot at exploiting the upper class, and finally meet their match in Carter Hayes, who is as savvy of rental laws as any lawyer Patty and Drake could hire. The only collateral damage in Hayes' war with Patty and Drake is the elder couple who also lived in the building, who were clearly rich enough to move out on a whim. It's a classic case of who do you root for? hashtag, first world problems. Made for a fun, sleazy movie, too. Could have been better if Hayes (Keaton) had more screen time, and more of a plot with him hitting on Patty.

[–] Heidi_Smiles 9 years ago

Ridiculous.

They were hardly "wealthy"; they couldn't make the mortgage payments without their tenants contributing.

They weren't "preying" on anyone - they were offering apartments for rent, which they remodeled very nicely and fixed every problem that arose.

The rent wasn't "exorbitant" either, by any definition.

They weren't "speculative" investors - it was their HOME they were renting out. They even said so many times. They had no intention of selling until Keaton's character made their life a living hell.

They didn't sell for "twice" what they paid ... They paid $700k and made $800. After tens of thousands of dollars in remodeling.

I seriously question your values and your sanity if you have any sympathy for Keaton's character whatsoever.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thomasam32 9 years ago

What a ridiculous reaction. They bought a house that they could just barely afford, thinking that they could rent out rooms to make up the difference in the mortgage. They aren't "slumlords", they're getting a fair rent in an expensive area of SF.

They had a number of people looking at the place at that rent and put a lot of effort into upgrading the place. That's not a slumlord situation.

[–] ProfSpielberg 9 years ago

Good drugs, eh?

[–] SpinningPlatesTrick 8 years ago

Yup, OP definitely needs to lay off the crack pipe

[–] cataclysm1071 8 years ago

Actually, there was a small scene where Hayes did hit on Patty very subtly. He was talking to her on the phone, during Drake's absence, and said that he wish things had gone differently, because they could have become "good friends". I took this as his attempt to win her affection, and recruit her as his new partner in crime, possibly replacing the Beverly DeAngelo character in his life.

As for being slumlords, I would love to have "slumlords" as attentive as them. She didn't even get upset about the Japanese couple hitting an electrical wire in the wall with a nail, while they were hanging a picture. Most landlords would throw a fit about nails in the wall to begin with...especially after all of the expensive remodeling they had just done. To me, they seemed to actually care about their tenants comfort and safety, rather than just getting the rent check every month.

[–] Foster (876) 8 months ago

It must be tough --- going through life with your head that far up your rectum