MovieChat Forums > The Descendants (2011) Discussion > Did anyone else think this was just plai...

Did anyone else think this was just plain terrible?


-Awful narration and dialogue
-The plot was overflowing with cliches
-Most of the characters were simply stereotypes
-The story had absolutely no direction (the whole bit about the land had absolutely nothing to do with the plot about the wife)
-The "humor" was just plain shock value. This wasn't a dramedy; it was a drama with cussing and violence that I was apparently supposed to laugh at.

I could go into more detail, but really, I just want to know if other people also thought it was terrible. I think this is easily the worst movie I've seen this year (and I watched No Strings Attached and Gnomeo And Juliet). (EDIT: I just watched Thor. Thus, my last comment is no longer valid.) I saw this with two other friends, and when we left the theater, before I told them what I thought, I asked them what they thought, and they both said it was really bad.

How this has a higher rating on Rotten Tomatoes than The Help, Beginners, Jane Eyre, Barney's Version, etc. is beyond me.

reply

I think how one accepts this flawed movie (like most movies) is determinate upon one's age. I wouldn't be driven to find and confront a spouse's secret partner but I can easily accept a callow Matt doing so. That didn't spoil it for me. I would rate it a 7 out of 10 which is hardly terrible. My guess is that you are a young viewer. I'm 67

reply

I am 54 not that young sadly, and thing it was terrible, but I was looking for a film, not a movie:))

reply

Cinema is an interesting art form. My wife and I have thought about what we saw. We surmise that in twenty years the film won't be of much interest. It will just be one of thousands of films. Still, there were some poignant moments as there were in the directors films. We go to films expecting a 6.8 and if we end up viewing an 8.0 we are thrilled. I would mention that we both saw hundreds of films in earlier days but see perhaps 10 per year at most. We felt BREACH was notable.
Hang in there! You'll get lucky and find the perfect 10.0 someday.

reply

My wife and I saw it again on a library rental and weren't surprised we stuck with it. I think the family tale is still poignant. One looks for footage that is compelling. Funny, the teenage daughter is now starring in Divergent. I think Clooney wants to be involved with notable films/movies to make a change-to improve people's behavior and thinking. Michael Clayton was powerful to me. His remake of FailSafe was also a notable project. Maybe it is unspoken orientation that makes him dedicated to being helpful rather than a Hollywood star.

reply

Yep I agree. How did it get Golden Glob Awards for best movie and actor.
George Clooney wasn't really stretched much beyond his normal screen persona
The would be tear jerk moments were twee, contrived and predictable.
Apart from the swearing by the girls it was not far away from some kind of Disney family movie.
All that was missing was the cute dog

reply

[deleted]

I wouldn't be driven to find and confront a spouse's secret partner but I can easily accept a callow Matt doing so.


Callow?

reply

I see your point. Matt was thoughtful but also self absorbed in an arrested way.
His wife was a mess and a thrill seeker. I felt the scene where Clooney did not contradict his father in law's appraisal of his "little girl" showed him to have some maturity. The voice overs about the misconception of the islanders life by the mainland types was a good script device.

reply

-The story had absolutely no direction (the whole bit about the land had absolutely nothing to do with the plot about the wife)

Huh? That had every bit to do with the wife! Did you even watch the movie?

--

reply

[deleted]

I did. There was dialogue thrown in to try and make a connection, and I understand that many viewers consider them a parallel situation, but I found them to be fairly irrelevant.

reply

The fact that the wife's lover stood to make a small fortune from commissions from selling Clooney's character's land is irrelevant?

reply

it didn't connect because in the end, clooney's decision had nothing to do with his wife's affair. it was about an ideal, preserving the land of their family, etc.

www.dandollar.com

reply

Interesting observation. The director may have had in mind commenting on the aspect of human nature where we just take and never give. Did any of the "cousins" ever build the assets of what they had inherited? Most people just suck on an inheritance and never think of enhancing it for the next generation.

reply

you are correct, but all of this had nothing to do really with the main plot of trying to find his wife's lover and bearing the bad news to family

www.dandollar.com

reply

I looked at the search for his wife's paramour as a contrivance. The director perhaps wanted to make the film a character study of a callow male who hadn't yet faced a defining crucible. He had a peri epiphany about inherited privilege's social obligations which forced him finally to make an unpopular decision. I think he felt better about his life even though he and his girls were in for some awful times. The cheater's wife was also going to have some rough times ahead.

reply

...nothing to do with his wife's affair?

Something you have to read between the lines of script. That seems to be a lost art in an age when Michael Bay is considered a successful director!

reply

I felt that the film makers left it entirely up to the audience that whether or not the cheating had an impact on the Fathers decision Personally after devoting so much of the film to his stalking of the wife's lover it did influance it and yes I found this movie terribleand overly long and boring. I don't mind crying at the movies but don't over push my cry button

Oh GOOD!,my dog found the chainsaw

reply

not terrible, but not good. almost terrible. maybe actually it was terrible.

who would go to those odd lengths to inform a spouse's secret lover about the spouse's impending death? the idea felt contrived the moment it came up and never really took hold despite consuming the rest of the movie. only slightly compelling and not at all believable. artifice.

some decent moments in a long not-good movie

reply

who would go to those odd lengths to inform a spouse's secret lover about the spouse's impending death? the idea felt contrived the moment it came up and never really took hold despite consuming the rest of the movie. only slightly compelling and not at all believable. artifice.


Telling his wife's lover about her coma was obviously just the handiest excuse he could find to justify confronting him at the time he did. Matt obviously wanted to to confront this guy and get some answers about his wife's affair and apparently it was driving him crazy enough to not want to wait until after she died. His friends didn't have a lot of answers and yelling at his wife's comatose body wasn't getting him anywhere either. Her lover was the only one that had any answers. Using the excuse that "he should know so he'll have a chance to say goodbye" made it okay in his mind to go find him before they pulled the plug. Notice that after his confrontation, he was able to let go of his anger towards his wife and let her go. He might not have been able to do it if he didn't get the answers he needed beforehand.

reply

Hated it! How is it the movie was entertaining or even educational?! It is really frightening how many awards this is up for as well and winning?! The power of George Clooney and a director that doesn't work that often?! The movie was also made for a way to film in Hawaii as well!

reply

The writer wanted to make a point of a person feeling a sense of moral obligation to not cash out but instead continuing an inherited legacy which he felt was notable. Matt showed some growth. Losing a spouse is monumental and that calamity meant he finally had to be a responsible adult father.
The wife was having an affair with a guy who wanted the legacy to be developed in a way to make big bucks for himself. That creepy cheater may have even talked about such a deal with Matt's wife. The wife was a tragedy due to an overindulging father. Turning over the legacy would have meant she could finally have her own cigarette boat and fly atop the waves at 90mph. Such a destiny was petty at best but perhaps that is what she felt was notable.

reply

I didn't hate this movie but I was dissapointed. I got the feeling it was a MUCH better novel than movie. George Clooney is charming but he was not up to the depth of the circumstances in the script

Finally Having lived through the loss of a close family member there were certain things I didn't find realistic such as leaving town to go to the beach for a couple of days knowing that the doctors will be pulling the plug

reply

^ They're trying to find Speers. Even Alex said to Scotty they weren't at the beach resort for a vacation or for fun after she wanted to swim with sharks.

reply

I know that's the excuse still he wouldn't leave and I believe if he did the younger daughter or the Dad or the friends would have confronted him. I didn't buy it.

reply

reply

Terrible? No, but not first rate either. This did not feel like other Alexander Payne films I have seen. It was missing something. Can't help but wonder if it would have been more successful with a better actor playing Matt.

reply

[deleted]

+1

reply

Can't help but wonder if it would have been more successful with a better actor playing Matt.
I liked this film, but agree to that point.

IMHO, so often in his film roles, Clooney comes across as too aware of his perceived handsomeness, and otherwise, movie-star persona. Makes it difficult to "suspend disbelief" and experience watching a genuine character in a story, rather than just "There's George Clooney pretending"

Someone like Paul Giamati would have been a better choice.

reply

Paul Giamatti would have been PERFECT and may have turned my experience around for me. As it stands, I was thoroughly disappointed in almost every aspect of the film. I really wanted to like it, and I like to think that I tried, but I have too many issues with it. George Clooney and his overrated acting ability being one of them.

I liked him in Win Win, though, and prefer to think of that as his prime role of 2011.

"Ronnie the Bear Weasley, you are bravery, you are courage, you are chess. 1000 points!"

reply

I think his prime role of 2011 was easily Barney's Version. It disturbs me how few people have seen that wonderful movie.

reply

I understand your observation. The husband could not have been a smack like Giamati. There are about 150 actors who could have pulled off the part. I did think Forrester as the father of the comatose wife played it perfectly.

reply

[deleted]

The viewer is led to believe that the marriage was broken way before the boating accident. Whose fault for letting the marriage go sour was perhaps purposely left vague. I sensed that the father in law was never fond of Matt in addition to being blind to his own daughter's flaws. Perhaps over the years they would reconnect and truths would be spoken in kind ways- not in an incriminating manner. The grand daughters might want to connect with their maternal grandfather (the grandmother being already mentally incapacitated). There was some hint that families can heal. People do foolish and thoughtless things and forgiveness is usually a late stage of human emotional growth.

reply

George Clooney once again defining what a real actor is and embodying,transforming into the complex character....George Clooney. He really convinced me he was...George.Just like in the two pictures he actually got Oscarnominated for,Michael Clayton and Up in the air.

I thought the acting was mediocre,the story dull and all over the place,disoriented I could call both editor and director and as you say cliche´d. How Clooney can get nominated and celebrated,which he will again for this,while a real actor like Benicio Del Toro for instance transformed into his character in Things we lost in the fire without any recognition really annoys me...cause yes,there can be difference in taste but when an actor always has the exact same voice,tone of speech,mannerisms,bodylanguage and always is exactly the same...that´s a moviestar,not an actor.I don´t buy the lead character,I can´t buy the story.The rest of the actors were decent,this has been done before.A 4.

This one will get several Oscarnominations and for instance an Old school thriller like The debt will get none,a lovely little ensemblethriller.God damn,2011 suck as a movieyear...

reply

----I agree with Jenzen, I thought Clooney did an amazing job playing Clooney losing a wife. Not enough character development, with exception to Cid.(No i'm not joking, but somewhat bad acting)

----I also thought about how many other people really cared if the wife died. By the end of the movie I just wanted them to get it over with, it seemed like the two lead characters were ready for her to move on too.

----Scottie was a horribly cliche character, as was Cid, but at least you felt something for him when he was being looked up to for wisdom. The movie lacked any kind of real charm as well. I felt like they ran out of happy things to talk about, I know the situation wasn't a happy one, but even in Sideways there was a great charm with the characters.

----I know this movie is going to be nominated for a bunch of things, but hopefully they don't get anything. Sideways was much better, this movie-6/10

reply

"The Descendants" is a wonderful film, a dramedy in which situations of potentially the deepest tragedy are leavened with very human humor. Clooney is superb in the movie. Yes, to some extent he is "always the same" in his roles--but so were Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, et al. That doesn't mean they were bad actors. It just means that they chose their films well. It strikes me that people who weren't both moved and amused by this film lack a sense of the ironic twists and turns that life can take.

reply

it's like a lifetime film but with better cinematography.




His name...was Julio Iglesias!

reply

aha for a second I thought you were serious about the G Clooney -- who can only play cold fishes -- no range, though charming in some things.

reply

Very funny, since I find that George Clooney can't get into character. He's always the same *beep* boring actor.

Name one movie where he does anything resembling acting--i.e. taking on a role?

reply

Yeah but don´t forget,he drives a hybrid,"he wants to be part of the solution and not the problem,we here in Hollywood are a bit ahead of the curve."

Jesus,how can his face not be red forever after condescending shi- like that? Cause of the same reason he says things like that,Hollywood just loves their little cashcow/Hollywoodglorifying PR-machine.

It´s actually a bit scary. We look at his roles,performances and what the character is on paper,meaning what he is supposed to bring to life is beyond irrelevant. He is the top 5 easy when it comes to just being George/himself. And look at his FOUR Oscarnominations. How different is his work in Up in the air from The descendants and Michael Clayton? Or Intolerable Cruelty? Or everything....

Let´s call a beard and some extraweight a marvellous transformation by Clooney standards,Syriana is an exception but stuff like that has to be done well,not just done. How often does he play a guy with just a different accent then the one he himself has? His characters obviously by pure chance come from the same town as Clooney,coincidence.

FOUR. Benicio came to mind,an actor who although more then he has become uses voiceacting,change his mannerisms,details. If we watch The usual suspects,21 Grams,Sin City,Fear and loathing in Las Vegas,Things we lost in the fire,The pledge and in that order,it´s at times hard to believe it´s the same actor. Only two nominations there.
Jeffrey Wright(just tricking me into thinking he was a latino in Shaft,wow)becomes his characters,zero noms.
Ray Liotta has charisma and was often on repeat....and not a single one for him,though a few roles like Narc and Goodlellas and Copland eat Clooney alive. Andy Garcia one. Brendan Gleeson none.

Ed Harris is usually close to previous characters but he has a far more interesting,dangerous presence and can show a range of emotions...and of his 4,he has never won.


Clooney,good God....who now when you reminded me of him,I realize I dislike. I hate internetbashing,he hasn´t bought his fame persay,people go to a Clooneymovie and know what they get,they made him famous,not him. But he is not an actor,in my eyes. He is a moviestar with a charisma alot of people associate with symphatetic. Very ungifted,you are extremely correct and nomming him for this descendthingy,concidering Shannon,Gleeson and Fassbender etc that year....shame. See Gleeson in The guard and laugh your ass off,just some friendly advice. Peace.

reply

Not a bad film but not near as great as some are pretending.

reply

I thought it was very well done and the complaints here are snivelling and without basis.

Sure Clooney has a persona he has to deal with every time he plays a character. So? People who complain too much about that sort of thing should limit their film viewing to documentaries.

reply

what did you think was good about this film?

reply

SPOILERS ALERT

What I liked about the film:

The acting, but I often find it a matter of opinion whether there is good or bad acting in films. I also thought it was well cast. But the main argument I make for the film concerns the way the film explores the difference between how things look or seem on the surface, and what is really going on.

The choice of Hawaii as the locale is obviously intentional in that connection, and I don't doubt there may have been included an intended anti-development polemic, not that such is undeserving, included as well. But that is a specific facet, not necessarily part of the underlying attraction of the film.

As the film perhaps too explicitly notes, but this does set the stage, the daily life experienced by those living in a surface appearing paradise is not without the complications that life brings no matter where you live. In fact one must be careful not to let the surface veneer fool you, as is very much the case with Beau Bridges's cousin Hugh. While the film does not make an explicit connection to an assessmsent or argument that the surface amounts to pure fakery, even counterfeiting (please see the 80's era classic example of that type of film in William Friedkin's To Live and Die in LA), it is the distance from the surface image from the underlying reality that is where the film's dynamic plays out.

Matt's journey begins before the film's beginning, as his wife (seen in flashback) has already had a horrific accident, and not in some mundane way, but while pleasure boating off Waikiki. How Hawaiian! And yet, how awful. He gives expression to his regrets with an almost cliched voice over, stating an intention once his somewhat estranged wife awakes to start over.

This happy ever after scenario is quickly subverted by the bad news delivered by Elizabeth's doctor, and paradise is not about to return to Paradise. Well, not without a journey.

Matt then spends time with Scottie, his younger daughter. Is she merely a bully he wonders as the mother of a fellow student claims? Perhaps, although the student's reaction on their encounter is quite ambiguous. Yet we can easily imagine the foul mouthed Scottie in that role. But the encounter also includes a tie in to what is a huge issue looming in Matt's life, with the mother not so subtly lobbying him not to sell the land. Is that why she called him???

Matt takes Scottie to his club, which we soon learn has a connection to his wife's accident. The nearing middle aged beach bum he encounters has a role in the accident, but again, it is not clear, and we are left with a concern that Troy is another resident of Paradise who is very much a mixed bag.

Feeling quite unbalanced, it occurs to Matt he must inform his oldest daughter, and not so subtly if also not surprisingly feels that she may be a help with Scottie. As they both travel to the big island, we already suspect the surface veneer, and Alexandra sure enough is breaking the rules, as foul mouthed as her younger sister, and drunk. Well, somewhat, anyway.

This subversion of the ideal of the family drawing together to deal with unhappy news is only getting started, of course. Leaves in the pool show the household is already showing decline due to Elizabeth's absence. Things must either move forward or they will go into decline. Matt seems clear eyed at times, quiet at others, but also (later) pondering his fate over a glass (or several) of whiskey. He in fact can go in several directions at this point. Where does he go?

The full measure of how much his life had been drifting before the film began begins to become apparent when Alexandra tells Matt about Elizabeth's infidelity. While we can accept at least conceptually that Matt may not have been the best husband all along, and how that might have played into Elizabeth's cheating, her doing so in a way that allowed for discovery by Alexandra is a concern, compounded by her angry reaction when Alexandra confronted her. But again, this is not a simple case of Elizabeth being a purely self involved adulterer. Interesting as well is Alexandra's anger is in some measure a reflection of prior problems in her relation with her mother. Despite ambivalence in her relation with Matt, on this score Alexandra seems to blame Elizabeth entirely.

Matt reacts understandably to this news, but later we see how he takes some of the blame for his wife's cheating on himself. He knows things Alexandra does not.

Sid is another one who we see is first something quite a bit more toxic than the simple minded beach bum he seems to be at first. As is Elizabeth's father quite a bit more than the let's all pull together family member.

The plot line involving the Kauai property is reintroduced following Matt's identification of Brian Speer as his wife's lover. In this segment we learn not only that the land in question is something quite a bit more than just an "undeveloped" piece of land, that being a land not only legally but literally held in trust, with memories and a human connection to it. We also learn that whatever plans for confronting Brian must take into account the other members of Brian's own nuclear family, including his by all appearances very innocent, charming and nice wife. Or is that another surface illusion?

Matt continues his journey by encountering cousin Hugh, who we first see here as a middle aged laid back almost hippie type. We might normally expect such a person to have, like, you know, respect for the beauty of the land, man, but Hugh in fact seems rather "resigned" to selling it.

Matt also begins to understand that Brian's cheating on his wife is not the only problem in their situation, as the financial underpinnings of the family apparently include some suspect connection to the land deal. So, going ahead with the deal will be good for the Speer family, including nice Julie?

Matt does confront Brian in the most awkward of circumstances, yet his concern for Julie and their children prevents him from ratting Brian out. We admire Matt for that, for his restraint. Yet... he forcefully kisses Julie outside of Brian's sight, and we feel a frisson of satisfaction, with this small measure of getting back at his wife's lover.

And yet... Matt also has discovered Brian really did not love Julie. What then to make of the views/news from Elizabeth's friend that she thought Julie wanted to leave Matt for Brian? And destroy his family as well as Matt and theirs? What was THAT based upon? Brian said it was only a physical attraction, begun at a Super Bowl party.

THey have those in Hawaii, too.

The narrative proceeds through another perhaps even greater expression of Matt's restraint, having to hear his father in law refer to his wife as faithful. Lucky that he did not say that in front of Alexandra. The encounter with Julie in the hospital room shows what perhaps not surprisingly was the actual outcome of Matt's visit to the Speers, and I for one wonder whether and to what extent his kissing Julie alerted her to something being wrong in her marriage.

The theme of death in the film calls for a separate discussion, I think, one in any event I have no time for today.

But the foregoing I think makes for an interesting narrative exposition of how we can get pieces of the truth from others, but that the truth of human relations is only partly understood at times, here and there. Each glimpse may be misleading, or only tell part of the truth. Even as the film closes we only understand part of who Elizabeth was. But just like in real life, that is the way it is for all of us when and as we leave this world.

In short, I found in the film a true representation of how we understand others and waht is true about them, and ourselves. There in fact is an absence of conventional story telling in that regard in this film. The film's appearance as a conventional narrative belies its risks and willingness to examine some very hard issues. It has a certain bravery in the way it proceeds.

I enjoyed it very much.

reply

I thought this movie was so much better than The Help.
And I really enjoyed The Help!

This movie made me think about life and relationships. Had me laughing out loud and crying visible tears.

Oscar worthy by all involved.

10 stars

reply

The Help was a better film but niether really are that great.

reply

Kidding right?? I am new here:)

reply

No, it's just plain awful.

reply

For someone who even bothered to see Gnomeo and Juliet, I almost paused bothering responding to your despondence over a film that you so easily dismissed.

1. This was a delicate, soulful movie with moments of silence, laughter, sadness, irony and despair.
2. The dialogue was relatable and respectful of who people are, how they act, and think, and how all of us respond differently to acts of dishonesty. How families can be rebuilt. How someone you underestimate is far better than you thought. How there are stories we never think to ask, but when they are shared, we become better for that sharing or gain a new perspective.
3. To dismiss “lessons learned” when there were so many is painful to read. The “land deal” that had nothing to do with the story had everything to do with the story.
4. For those who expect guns, action, the quick unfolding happy meal, instant gratification that so many of the films that the public eats up, then they aren’t going to get how really wonderful this film is.

And, that makes me sad.

reply

Actually, that must be it. I was really expecting guns and action. That must be why I didn't like it :P

As for the snarky comment about Gnomeo And Juliet, I'm willing to give anything a try. I've discovered many movies that were dismissed by critics and/or audiences that somehow resonated with me, and even though Gnomeo And Juliet wasn't a good movie, I'd be lying if I said I didn't somewhat enjoy it. Which is more than I can say for this movie, which again, I found was trite, melodramatic, and cliched.

reply

But you liked, or at least likened your own rating in comparison to the rotten tomato rating for the likes of movies you must have seen since you listed them. But, I saw nothing to indicate you saw any of those films. Since we tend to comment on films we have either seen, or saw a trailer for...Right? No such trend here mate.

And, unless I was comatose that smurf rendition of Romeo and Juliet is something I wouldn't even bring children to. It's that whole resonance of a film like that that teaches us nothing. Brain dead and re-constituted alt realities that are really boring and probably account for the low math and English reading scores the US currently rates at and continually slides downwards towards third-world nation scores.

So,cheers.

reply

I don't rely on critics, but if a movie is showing at my local independent theater (in walking distance), and it got reviews as good as The Descendants, then yes, I might give it a shot. There's a big gap between relying on critics and ignoring them altogether.

And yes, I did see all the films I mentioned. In fact, I specifically chose a few films from this year that critics and I both liked. If you really need proof that I saw them, you can drive over to my house and I can show you the ticket stubs, but I really hope that won't be necessary.

As for the Gnomeo And Juliet argument (that really, has nothing at all to do with the original argument), I thought the animation was very good, it was well cast, and had moments of genuine charm, as well as wonderful music. I agree that for the most part it was a very bad movie, but it had its merits, and like I said, I like to give even poorly-received movies a chance. Think of the amount of classic movies that didn't get good reviews. Criticizing someone for seeing a bad movie is hardly an argument. Add to that the fact that you admitted to watching it yourself...

reply

If you think this is a good movie, I think Atlas Really Did Shrug:))

reply

^ That was a good one, I'll admit.

reply

Loved your perspective, atlas. I found this a poignant, subtle movie that didn't wince at looking at the painful emotions around loss, grief and deceit. I've never seen a movie that portrayed that strange limbo time of waiting for death to come, and that portrayed young people so realistically in their responses to the situation.

This movie will stay with me for a while.

reply

[deleted]