So a homeless grandmother takes away Nash's son?? This guy is painted as a real fighter. He fights tooth and nail for his home but just lets his mom walk off with HIS child? I find that hard to believe. I find it even harder to believe that his kid wants to walk away from THAT home to go back to the ghetto motel with his grandma. Really?
shareThat part bothered me too. I understand if they wanted their old home back but it was ridiculous that she felt the need to take his son away, as if living in a huge house was some dangerous situation. It's not like he had turned into a bad father. If it wasn't for the guy recognizing him at the motel then everything would have seemed normal to them.
shareAmber Alert
shareThat was dumb. I liked the movie but there was some amateur scenes and editing in the movie. The ending was so stupid too. He gave up his son and probably going to jail for a family he literally just met and ,I mean very loosely, knew but he got through evicting families with children before no problem. It was just super unrealistic and I didn't buy it for a second.
shareIt was kind of weird, like I'm imagining if Principal Skinner had a son and then his mother Agnes takes Seymour Jr. away from him after they have a quarrel lol.
shareIt's called the ham fisted morality trope. Its common in a lot of hollywood films. In reality nobody especially some entitled lazy granny who apparently pays no bills would actually walk away from a sweet home based off some idiotic self righteous indignation. The little kid like most kids would pitch a fit leaving a normal existence to live in a poverty camp. Image is everything to most kids. This film was pretty good except for the family, their whole dynamic was one big dumb cliche bag filled with a dozen tropes.
shareThe cynicism of these responses represents so much of what is wrong in today's morality and ethics. The granny didn't want to leave the home because she disagreed with the jerk realtor. She knew he was corrupt and evil and wanted nothing to do with any profit from that theft. It's called having a backbone, and yes, some people do look at life and live that way. They often end up poor, but at least they have integrity and pride that they didn't leave dead bodies or boot marks on people's backs on their way through life. It's about deciding how you want to live life. How do you teach your children? Is there right and wrong? Yes, there may be gray areas, but this situation wasn't one of them. Carver justified every evil act he perpetrated. Taking from the government doesn't justify theft, it is still theft. He didn't care who he hurt and robbed, as long as he didn't end up poor. Living life with ethics and guidelines of honesty and kindness isn't a trope or a cliche, it's a life choice. Nash abandoned those guides and lost his way and knew in his heart and soul that he had made the wrong choice. The ends does not justify the means. His mother knew that and I do too. Very sad that the discussion doesn't reflect these insights into the philosophical aspects of this movie. Money isn't the end all and be all. The way we glorify and admire the rich is sick. Most of them got there by screwing people over. That's what this movie shows. Thanks for reading all this, let the bashing begin.
shareGreat speech, but what does any of this have to due with my original topic? My complaint was that a grandmother would have no right in this situation to take away a son from his father. Another person chimed in saying that the son would not want to leave his father or that nice house in that situation. I think your rant would be better suited for a different thread.
shareI won't engage in a verbal exchange with such a rude reply. I was responding to all the comments. My thoughts are coherent and I stand by them. They are relevant to the many comments on this thread, not just to your original point.
shareHe was clearly responding to the person above; are you new to Internet discussion forums?
shareFunny, but no, not new. Just felt like that long rant was way out of place given not just the original topic but the overall discussion, as well as the person you say he/she was replying to (he/she even mentions responses, plural. Thanks tho.
shareNo, she doesn't have the 'right' - but some people prefer to deal with things civilly rather than have a huge argument over something that is just temporary... It wasn't as though she was applying for full custody; she was removing him from his father's presence for a night... In the grand scheme of things, no big deal.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
I reckon the kid would have been keener to stay in the big house with the pool though.
shareBravo,I agree.
shareAgreed.
share"lazy granny" LOL! Like wth did she do? She was really helping out on the mortgage and bills being an at-home hair stylist I'm sure.
shareI'm pretty sure she said she was going to stay with some friend or relative. Since she was the first person to state the importance of leaving the motel, I very much doubt that was where they went after leaving the fancy house.
shareTo the OP...I agree 100%. That made zero sense and I'd called the cops on her. That's kidnapping. Plus, the main guy and mom were not paying on their loan..um, losing your house is usually what happens when you do that. But the movie portrayed them as heroes for wanting to live in poverty. They didn't pay their loan. So they blame the guy (who yes is a crook) that came and told them the news that was coming and if it wasn't him it would have been someone else. They just lost in court...id been waiting for the eviction and had my stuff packed.
shareThe film makes no sense and this is one of the PRIME flaws.
There is nothing in the film that suggests that the grandmother has custody of the grandson. Therefore, the father (there is no mother and no explanation for what happened to her!) has full custodial rights.
If she took the child, Nash could call the police and have the son brought back to him.
This would be made exponentially worse by the fact that the grandmother is HOMELESS and Nash now has a gorgeous $300K house with a pool. It is also unclear why the boy would agree to go -- he's not a toddler, he is about 11 years old.
Even if Nash ends up convicted of delivering a forged document -- that's like a misdemeanor at best. He would not lost custody over this or face jail time. And it would likely take a year or more before ANY punishment (which would likely be community service or a fine).
Agreed 100%!! I said the same thing, he had FULL custody so mom or not, he could have called the cops and had her arrested. He acted like "oh no...what do I do..I can't do anything!" Errr, yes u can. That's your son, nit hers. Grandmother or not.
And the fact that they basically complained at moving out from a motel to a 300k house...laughable! How many people do you know would have complained based on some silly moral argument that you got the house from the guy that was there when you got evicted for NOT PAYING YOUR MORTGAGE!!!! That's usually what happens. What a whacked out message this film has. I'm a liberal and this is liberal garbage propaganda!