MovieChat Forums > 99 Homes (2015) Discussion > Idiotic pandering film

Idiotic pandering film

posted 8 years ago by lillygirl-40110
29 replies | jump to latest

Why am I supposed to feel sorry for someone WHO KNEW for months that he could not pay his mortgage, for some reason could not find the income to pay for his home and support his family? This is NOT the fault of devious bankers.

When purchasing a car, don't you look at the monthly payments? And figure out whether you afford them, whatever the salesman is trying to talk you into? If you don't make your monthly payments, do you really not expect that somehow your car might be suddenly gone?

A lot of the mortgage crisis in 2008 was fueled by greed on the part of home buyers. They thought that they could never lose, that the market was always going up, and they could bail out with a profit if they could not support the payments.

[–] LittlePasLady 8 years ago

A house is not an ATM. Hopefully people will realize this now.

[–] backlash 8 years ago

Did you not watch the entire movie? The system was rigged. No one is asking for you to feel sorry for people that bought homes they could not afford. What about the old man whose spouse passed away after signing a reverse mortgage? You even know what a reverse mortgage is for? What about the family that was renting a house and was reassured that everything was taken care of?

Do you understand what was going on with the air conditioners?

[–] LittlePasLady 8 years ago

Some people were innocents and were caught in the cross fire. Yes the renter did nothing wrong but a vast majority of the homeowners looked at their homes as an ATM and took out cash that they shouldn't have.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

The problem with the movie is that it took people who knew what they were doing (Nash) and people who were tricked (old guy), and tried to pretend that they're all the same and that they're all victims... They weren't. Some people didn't deserve to lose their homes, but some absolutely did.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

One thing right about the film is how accurately it conveyed how quickly people are ready to abandon their values and justify that departure when greed took hold.

[–] MortimerSpice 8 years ago

so it's who's fault? The banks fault for wanting the house back because the owner didn't pay? So the renter is put out a little. He can go rent another house. The old man....well, some guys are lucky and some aren't. He was unlucky enough to marry a woman who was dumb enough to get a reverse mortgage. Again, not the banks fault.

[–] backlash 8 years ago

Do you understand what is a reverse mortgage? The couple had paid the house off. The bank makes payments to the couple to own it back. There was nothing for the old couple to default on. There was dirty stuff going on. You might also need to watch another movie when banks found another dirty way to make money. Watch The Big Short and come back to say the crisis wasn't their fault.

[–] LilyDaleLady 8 years ago

I understand it, though the filmmakers did not seem to. An old man with a reverse mortgage owes nothing; he is getting PAYMENTS from the bank. It is also FEDERALLY INSURED!

I can't understand who or what entity would be foreclosing on such a person.

You can lose a home by other means -- for example, if you don't pay your taxes, the COUNTY can foreclose on you and sell your home for back taxes. But nothing in the story of "99 Homes" suggests that is what happened.

The only thing that remotely seemed plausible is that the sad old man was SENILE and had no idea WHAT was going on. In that case, he had no business living ALONE -- he needed to be referred to social services anyways.

The movie suggests that "anyone" can just throw you out of your home, and get a court order to do so. That is absolutely not true.

I was a landlady for 14 years (not in Florida). I had a single rental house. I had to evict tenants, and it was a terribly hard thing to do. It took MONTHS of paperwork and PROOF they did not pay the rent. And they had numerous chances to go to court and show if they DID pay the rent (none ever did; they were absolute deadbeats). They had access to Legal Aid for FREE (while I had to PAY for a lawyer!). It took a minimum of 3-4 months to evict a TENANT.

In the case of a HOMEOWNER, it is more like a year -- and during the foreclosure crisis, things were backed up so much, many homeowners in foreclosure got 3 years or more! in that time, they paid nothing and lived for free. Some were able to amass tens of thousands of dollars by not paying rent! then they bought NEW larger homes! it even has a name -- strategic foreclosure (letting your home go into foreclosure, so you can live rent free and then buy a nicer home for less money).

This movie is deceptive and dishonest. Which does NOT mean that banks, crooked realtors, and scams did not exist. But what this FILM depicts is NOT how the foreclosure crisis went down ... not at ALL.

[–] gtbarker 8 years ago

I want my taxes back from the banks that were given to them to bail them out - does that mean I can have the banks building Trumpy Wumpy?

'Well I've got two words for you - STFU'

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gtbarker 8 years ago

The Trumpers would rather rant and blame the victim than the fraudster criminals who rip them off - we all know that and then they moan about such trivial tosh that is based on lies anyway. And then they pretend they are Christians - absolutely hilarious.

'Well I've got two words for you - STFU'

[–] Ditships 8 years ago

The movie was well acted but I agree. Sucks when people think they can purchase a house above their ability to pay OR use their house as a ATM. There are always one off situations that are awful but people willingly setting themselves up for failure down the road just for a couple bucks today are hard to feel bad for. Read the loan you are signing. Understand how things are going to look TOMORROW and not justt how much easier it'll make TODAY.

[–] vilafire 8 years ago

Here's my story FWIW. We were both working very good full-time jobs but when we went to sell our house our realtor accepted an offer below the value of our mortgage and that simple fact screwed us there on out. The bank kept sending letters like crazy but they wouldn't pick up the phone; the courts were very decisive though.

I know that's not the same as the movie or probably most people but I'm sure something similar has happened to many.

[–] lillygirl-40110 8 years ago

Somehow your "realtor" accepted an offer, without your permission? Put on your big boy pants, and take some responsibility.

[–] gtbarker 8 years ago

Why do spoilt, spiteful, selfish people always think we want to read their horrible cold-hearted rabid right wing rants of IMDb?

'Well I've got two words for you - STFU'

[–] MortimerSpice 8 years ago

Same reason you think Conservatives want to hear bitching and moaning about how they are cold hearted, wealthy, racists. Same reason you think Conservatives want to hear Liberals apologizing to terrorists and thugs who desecrate this Country....apologizing to people and condoning people that are perfectly capable of work but instead look for a handout. Get the picture?

[–] lillygirl-40110 8 years ago

Remarkable erudite reply. Have you ever thought about joining the debate club?

My family and I own some (very humble) commercial and residential real estate, which we rent. Needless to say, we have expenses to pay related to these properties, mortgages, properties taxes, maintenance etc.

We try to be really good landlords.but when someone stops paying their rent we will visit them, try and see what is going on, and even reduce the rent if they have been good tenants, who have fallen on some short-term hard times.

Can we go our bank and say, "Oops, sorry we can't make our mortgage payment because our tenant Joe lost his job. Gee, can you cut us a breaK? His kid GREW UP IN THAT HOUSE!"

(That idiotic court scene was when I turned off this stupid movie.)

You can call it corporate greed, the cold-heartedness of bankers, but this is called called Capitalism. If you don't like it, I suggest you move to Venezuela.

[–] ThreeIn10 8 years ago

There are supposed to be regulations to prevent people from being taken advantage of and from making stupid mistakes, and to keep unscrupulous bankers (etc.) from doing things that help to create the giant clusterf* that happened in the late 2000s. Everyone who says that this is all the fault of people spending beyond their means need to get both a heart and a brain.

"Ask them when they’re spitting in your face as you walk them to the curb. Ask the banks why they gave them an adjustable rate mortgage. Ask the government why they lifted all regulations and turned a blind eye. You, the Tanners, the banks, Washington and every other homeowner and investor from here to China turned my life into evictions." -- Rick Carver

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ilykyu 8 years ago

mmh, people with MBAs and master degrees in maths and economics and finance and actuarial science whose sole aim in life is to climb the show-off ladder vis a vis folks who dropped out in middle school but still trying their best to get by...where should the weight of responsibility lie? Dear me, Such a mind bending question...

"what is your major malfunction numbnuts?!!"

[–] wpcoop2000 8 years ago

When people start speaking out in defense of Big Banking, I guess it means the End Times are upon us.

So long. It's been great.

[–] LilyDaleLady 8 years ago

I do feel sorry for people but this film was unrealistic in the extreme, and shoed very atypical examples of the housing/foreclosure crisis.....it was slanted and devious in how it presented material.

There were definitely people who got cheated, but the VAST MAJORITY of those foreclosed on, simply could not keep up their mortgages. MANY of these were unfavorable ARM mortgages (adjustable rate) with low teaser rates, that people accepted EITHER to buy a much more costly house than their income could support OR because they wanted to "pull money out" to buy expensive extras (new cars, remodeling projects, trips, pay off credit cards etc.).

As some have said here: your house is not a piggy bank for you to continually dip into, to support a lifestyle you cannot afford.

SO many things were left out here. I lived in Orlando from 2001-2004, and the biggest thing was the HUGE rise in real estate prices -- a bubble, that was unsupportable by real values or ordinary incomes. A $120K ordinary house was suddenly $350K! A $150K condo was suddenly $600K! These are real examples -- not from media or stores or hearsay, but from MY ACTUAL FAMILY MEMBERS IN CENTRAL FLORIDA. They were bragging about the huge wealth (on paper) that they suddenly had. It made them quite giddy. Some made poor financial decisions as a result -- but were lucky. None of my relatives were foreclosed on, though some ended up losing a great deal of that "paper value" in the crash.

What disturbed me most in the film was the idea -- expressed by several characters and apparently the beliefs of the filmmakers (who oddly, seem to be mostly of Indian South Asian descent) -- that if you buy a house (with a big mortgage!) and you fail to make payments on that home, it is still "yours" by some higher moral right. You can ignore eviction notices and pull a gun on the police, and it is all OK because you own the home not by paying the mortgage -- but by a moral right that assigns you a PARTICULAR specific home (and you can never sell, buy another house, or "move up" to a larger home).