The mother was a fool not to take that new House!

My friend Helen and me watch and rate films together. Both older gals, 60s, and we knit and take medication to relax.

We decided Michael Shannon was our new favorite indie actor ever since seeing him in Revolutionary Road and Bug. But 99 Homes was a bit of a disappointment.

Andrew Garfield (never sexier) plays a man who's mom and child get evicted from their house even though they claim they've "called their lawyers and have proof they have more time." In a tediously long scene, Shannon and his gang show up and tell him to remove his things from his property. This was not necessary. Too much cliche dialogue and a lot of build up.

Shannon decides that Garfield's determination to get his house back qualifies him to work for the team. So he hires him to fix ACs in homes he flips, and pays him a lot for it. It starts getting confusing then. We don't quite know WHAT Shannon's job was. Was he a Real Estate broker? How did he work with banks and the courts? Why was he getting away with it? Why were there scenes with Garfield and some thugs stealing people's Air Conditioners? Screenwriting was sloppy there.

Soon Garfield is doing Shannon's job, and is rich enough to buy his family a new home (vs staying in a sleazy motel). When he drives them up and walks them in, the property is gorgeous. But the Mom (Laura Dern) is angry and says she wants "her old house back". Really? You're going to turn down a MANSION so you can go be poor again? Really smart.

We got out our sewing needles by this scene because the plot was all over the place and glanced up at the television from time to time. But our own gossip probably got in the way of the final 20 minutes.

While the performances are strong (Shannon is a bit one-note), the movie is confusing. Similar to The Big Short; if you don't know anything about the housing market crash, this movie will send your brain into a whirlwind.

FINAL GRADE: C for Confusing!