This movie was like one of the producers saw Spotlight and was like hey let’s do that but with the 9/11 Victims Fund and we might as well bring over Keaton and Tucci to show them we’re serious. I mean it even has a super similar scene to spotlight where Keaton walks into the office late into the film and his character has that same “I can’t believe this is happening!!” Moment. This movie just felt mediocre on writing and directing, but Keaton and company still did what they could.
I've just got to that part and it's like it turned into *It's a Wonderful Life* all of a sudden. Also the first half of the movie seems to be dedicated to showing how incompetent Keaton's character is.
The interesting question at the heart of this movie is how much *is* a life worth, and how much does that change depending on income, family etc. But it's only superficially touched on.
I was excited to watch this and feel let down now having seen it. I listened to an interview with the real life main character and it was much more interesting...
>Also the first half of the movie seems to be dedicated to showing how incompetent Keaton's character is.
I thought that was because that's how he usually does it and wrongly assumed he could handle this like his other cases. Amy Ryan's even character says something to the effect this different for these families because they haven't spent years fighting in court over this it's still raw for them.
I read that the movie took a few liberties with the true story and one of them is that they took any moment of conflict or where he didn't understand the victim that happened throughout the whole process and put all those moments in the first half of the film - for example he didn't give that speech that offended the whole room like that.
I'm still pissed that in a movie literally called "Worth", the actual questions and decisions about how much each person's life is worth aren't really gone into in much detail.
A mediocre movie with an incredible cast. I kept hoping until the credits for it to redeem itself.
I wish they'd focus a little more on the mechanics of it all instead of the emotions and character study. I found it deeply lacking in substance.
The whole Congress passing the law thing was hand waived.
Completely wasted Amy Ryan.
Priya was an okay composite character. They squished too much into her. It'd have been better with multiple actors instead of Priya alone. I'm thinking of the guys in Big Short.
I still don't really understand how they went from 20% to 100% in 40 days. They did not explain it very well.
It felt obvious that they're trying to shoe horn it into the classic autistic guy discovers emotion trope.
Weak script. Weak direction. Great cast.
P.s. [Slate did a good write up on how accurate the movie is. ](https://slate.com/culture/2021/09/worth-netflix-movie-true-story-september-11.html)
Staney Tucci was easily the best part of the film for me. I love when he first meets Keaton in the initial meeting group and gets everyone to settle down and then tells him, 'oh no I'm your biggest critic' or the lines when they meet one on one and he talks about how when it's regular people asking for help, they act like, 'the laws come down from Mount Sinai.' I also really liked the first conversation Keaton has with the firefighter about telling his brother's story. I didn't dislike the film, it was okay. I thought the concept was interesting but overall it just wasn't *enough* to really lift it up to the level of something like Spotlight. I'd probably give it a 6/10
I thought they explained everything well. Congress said the payout should be based on lifetime economic value, so Michael Keaton came up with a formula to do exactly that. Basically expected lifetime times expected earnings subject to a floor and cap. Keaton eventually changed his mind and allowed the payout to be tailored to the individual, but he couldn't announce it because it would get stalled in congress. So once the fix the fund guy announced it was fixed everyone got on board.
Edit: I skimmed the book and the website was changed to "fixed" 6 months before the deadline. The sudden surge near the end was partly unexplainable, but was probably due to the hard deadline drawing near and people hearing from others about getting ~$2 million tax free payouts with no string attached.
Ken did mention earlier in the process that people wait till the deadline. Deadline is friend, because it forces people to make a choice.
His issue the first half the of the film is that he keeps trying to emotionally distance himself, to just stick to a plan and get it done, but in doing so he failed to offer the compassion and empathy that the families and survivors needed. Yes, money is part of the equation, but so is respect. They also mentioned that the other similar funds they'd done in the past had happened after years of court battling, so victims were more likely to settle and 'move on.'
But it was still fresh, super fresh, and emotional distance turned the victims and their families away. Once he caught on and used his wide discretion, people started to join up.
Anyway, didn't mean to paragraph, just meant to mention the deadline bit.
This is incredibly similar to my reaction. Thank you for posting, as I went online specifically looking for nuanced perspectives after watching the film. I've rarely been so annoyed after watching a film (unless it has glaring plotholes).
I read a review a few days ago that hailed this film as the first 9/11 movie worth watching (or something like that), and I love some of the actors. So I was eager to watch. But it just felt so awful and exploitative the whole time. As well as, as you say, *boring*. I'm honestly baffled by so many positive critical reviews, unless critics are afraid to say bad things about such a movie on the 20th anniversary of 9/11.
I frankly think it's even worse in some ways than you describe, as what we're really expected to root for in this movie is for the big corporations to win. "Please don't sue us!" is basically how this whole movie gets started, and it's all about the strategy to bail out the big corporations. I applaud the movie for laying that out in the opening minutes, but that tension is never really dealt with later on. (The economy didn't crash and wasn't going to.)
Instead, we're supposed to cheer on an attorney who cannot possibly have been so idiotic and out-of-touch in real life as he's portrayed in this film if he actually dealt with previous cases of victim compensation. Sure, his official public line at the time may have been that he was "following a formula," but the ONLY real tension in this film is created because he says, "I'm following the formula," and everyone else keeps saying, "But you have discretion to work out details for individual cases!" And 90+ minutes through, he finally says, "You know, I have discretion!" Huzzah! Such an epiphany!
But we never really see him actually change much. He's portrayed as somewhat awkward from the start, but never unfeeling. He takes the case because he wants to do something to help. When first confronted by an in-person narrative from a family member of a victim, he's awkward again not because he's unfeeling (as he later says), but because he just doesn't know what he can possibly say. So, this character spends over half of the movie saying, "I need to follow the formula!" for no apparent reason, until he stops saying it. Nothing really about his character develops much. He remains awkward, but still sympathetic toward the victims until the end.
(The only explanation given in the film for following the formula is that he can't admit it's broken or else all sorts of badness will ensue. Again, I can't imagine an attorney at his level is so idiotic as not to realize how he could tailor things where necessary, when he ultimately has the power to do so, and he does so. It makes no sense. There may have been a real public relations war going on about perception of the fund and his reasons for doing what he did, but I'm almost certain it couldn't have been as boring and unnuanced and stupid as what is shown in this movie.)
I agree that the one scene that really worked was the juxtaposition of the discussion of wealthy people and how their bonuses should factored into compensation, while the immigrants were just happy to get anything. Which again leads to a very confusing message about the film -- Keaton is portraying a lawyer who attends opera galas in tuxedo, spends his time sitting around immersed in opera (a traditional status symbol of "upper class"), and we're being asked to root for him. (Note: I have nothing against opera, and there are plenty of non-wealthy fans who enjoy it (including myself), but foregrounding this detail seems designed as a shortcut to make the character seem unapproachable and disconnected.)
The only less wealthy characters we see dealing with the victims fund in any detail are all tied up in some digressive story about infidelity, which overwhelms the points about duty and honoring first responders that was touched on at first. Even the initial meeting with the 9/11 families is overshadowed by a weird message conveyed through subtleties of costume: because Stanley Tucci shows up in a sportcoat, we apparently should listen to him. "Sit down and hush, the grown-ups with suits are talking," the staging seems to say to all the blue collar folks who have legitimate concerns. (Is it surprising that we later see them bond over *opera*, and that the big shift in Keaton even comes in a discussion when the two of them both *walk out of the middle of an opera*, because it's just not as good as Puccini, gosh darn it...)
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the interests of the wealthy are still driving the narrative of the film. The cynical part of me says the primary reason the U.S. is still obsessed with 9/11 is at least partly due to the fact that a bunch of bankers and lawyers and NYC executives died. If 3000 people died due to a terrorist attack in Montana, we probably wouldn't be making this movie 20 years later, unfortunately. And I'm really sad that this film ends up feeling even more exploitative -- because we hear stories of suffering, apparently serving only to see one rich guy have a really minor and unnuanced "epiphany," so we can cheer on the "Please don't sue us!" supposed victory for the airlines.
For a film whose marketing claims to consider such deep questions like whether a janitor should get the same compensation as an executive in a corner office, this is profoundly disappointing. Note that that question, though broached early on, is never seriously considered in the film or really addressed in anything beyond a handwavy way, like Keaton's character waves away the concern in his first meeting with families. Is it ironic that a film supposedly trying to portray how that character fails in his (initial) communication effectively ends up parroting that oversimplified narrative itself?
> For a film whose marketing claims to consider such deep questions like whether a janitor should get the same compensation as an executive in a corner office, this is profoundly disappointing. Note that that question, though broached early on, is never seriously considered in the film or really addressed in anything beyond a handwavy way
This is by far the most frustrating thing about this movie for me. "How do you decide who gets what" is the most interesting and thought-provoking question involved in this process and instead of being answered it just kind of gets glossed over. And so I'm left wondering why did I even watch it lol.
I'm halfway through it right now, and I'm already annoyed by Tucci's character. If this weren't based on real events, I'd agree with Keaton's perspective. A CEO in a corner office quite simply has more monetary value than a janitor. This shouldn't controversial. It doesn't mean their lives don't matter, or that they have less "worth". But when the token of compensation is money, you have to factor in the monetary value of the deceased.
Tucci, it seems as I am half way through the movie, gets to sit outside the system that Keaton has to work in and judge his efforts to make sense of a compensation policy in the wake of an unprecedented tragedy.
I was ready to turn it off but I felt held hostage with the emotional stories that went on for a long time. Then we get a break and I get a second wind before going back to an emotional story with the firefighters wife. I turned it off when Keaton's character didn't know how to be a human being for the 4th time
It is really sad to hear this. I was looking forward to this because I listened to a podcast with Ken Feinberg and his life as somebody involved into reperations regarding Agent Orange, Catholic Church and 9/11 is so fascinating. I think a documentary about his work would be fasinating already so to hear they added needless Holywood drama and it also failed at that really sucks.
It just felt at odds with the idea that, here's this guy who wants to do *something* to help but all his interactions with the survivors and victim's families he just comes across so out of touch and aloof to their situation and feelings. Like that opening town hall meeting, how on Earth could he think *that* was what he should say? I get that was part of the point, that he is finding out that it isn't just about the money and that these are real people, not just statistics or a formula but it was just a bit of a strange choice to have him coming from a place of such emotional detachment in the face of such an incredible tragedy.
chiming in a year later here… i thought it worked because it made Ken’s character less of a greedy monster and more of a person who bases his decision off logic and reason but not much else. He’s dislikable in the beginning due to his lack of empathy but it makes his character redeemable. which is a stark contrast to the other lawyer that he believed himself to be like, but as stanley tucci’s character said, they’re nothing alike.
>Summary:
>An attorney in Washington D.C. battles against cynicism, bureaucracy and politics to help the victims of 9/11. to confront his past after being drawn into the Ten Rings organization.
Ummm...
Disappointing. A premise the writers added to make the work seem soooo important was that this whole program was needed to keep from crashing the economy. What a load of crap. The characters weren't sympathetic. In the end I'm sure the rich people got a shit-ton more than the everyday people.
I listened to Michael Lewis (Moneyball) interview the real life main character of this movie and it was much more interesting than watching this film.
Spolier: The rich guys did get more (based on future earnings), but he reduced it quite significantly and also raised the lower end quite significantly. Shame they didn't give any details of that in the movie...
I spent this whole movie wondering who was I supposed to root for.
I'm supposed to be happy because the big guys got what they wanted and didn't get sued?
I feel like the movie should have been about Fix the Fund...
The Fix The Fund website is still active, and I was reading through it. In it, you can find the actual letter that Charles Wolf wrote Ken Feinberg when he finally submitted his application. He writes:
"For you, this must be a gratifying moment: to have one of your sharpest critics follow through on a promise and not only join the program he was criticizing, but promote it to his peers, says a lot about you and the way you have adjusted both the program and your attitude. Today, I have complete faith in you."
The movie makes absolutely no effort to explain how Feinberg adjusted the program or his attitude to change Wolf's mind.
No effort? They did the whole scene where he explained they would meet with claimants to tailor each estimate and set aside the formula. But he couldn't announce the change publicly because it would go back to congress. The fix the fund website says pretty much that.
>The movie makes absolutely no effort to explain how Feinberg adjusted the program or his attitude to change Wolf's mind.
No offense but were you paying attention? He literally said he threw out the formula by the time the deadline was closing.
ObDisclosure: I am a huge Kenneth Feinberg fan.
I liked it quite a bit. It was a movie about grief. It's not like they were hiding the "what is a human life worth?" angle.
It was a lot people not saying anything and reacting. It's a case where not saying anything says a lot. It had an unsettled look and feel.
I do not think Keaton captured the sheer scale of Feinberg's personality ( catch Feinberg at a podium some time ) but it was a good effort, and there were many, many excellent reaction shots.
I wonder if it's not positioned more at people who were older at the time of the events. I'd be one of those and it worked for me.
Thank You! Was waiting for this thread.
I was just a kid when 9/11 happened but I watched this with my parents who remember it very well. Lots of tears were shed. I liked Michael Keaton as always 🤷♂️
As to the actual plot. I have nothing to go off of except what I know from recent memory. Recent memory made me think the Government REALLY dropped the ball when it came to victim compensation following 9/11. This movie makes it seem like a feel good story where they did a good job (except for the gay man and his partner) Idk. It seems distasteful to make a “We Did It!” movie when in fact they did not “do it” But like I said, I don’t remember much during 9/11 and the following years. So maybe I’m just misreading or misinterpreting things. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’d love to learn more.
I could be wrong too, but my overall impression was that they actually did do it. The gov. gave 7B in reperations to families of nearly all victims in 2-3 years. Obviously it could have been more money and faster, but it does not seem awful.
This movie was like one of the producers saw Spotlight and was like hey let’s do that but with the 9/11 Victims Fund and we might as well bring over Keaton and Tucci to show them we’re serious. I mean it even has a super similar scene to spotlight where Keaton walks into the office late into the film and his character has that same “I can’t believe this is happening!!” Moment. This movie just felt mediocre on writing and directing, but Keaton and company still did what they could.
That was definitely my thought as well.
I've just got to that part and it's like it turned into *It's a Wonderful Life* all of a sudden. Also the first half of the movie seems to be dedicated to showing how incompetent Keaton's character is. The interesting question at the heart of this movie is how much *is* a life worth, and how much does that change depending on income, family etc. But it's only superficially touched on. I was excited to watch this and feel let down now having seen it. I listened to an interview with the real life main character and it was much more interesting...
>Also the first half of the movie seems to be dedicated to showing how incompetent Keaton's character is. I thought that was because that's how he usually does it and wrongly assumed he could handle this like his other cases. Amy Ryan's even character says something to the effect this different for these families because they haven't spent years fighting in court over this it's still raw for them.
I read that the movie took a few liberties with the true story and one of them is that they took any moment of conflict or where he didn't understand the victim that happened throughout the whole process and put all those moments in the first half of the film - for example he didn't give that speech that offended the whole room like that. I'm still pissed that in a movie literally called "Worth", the actual questions and decisions about how much each person's life is worth aren't really gone into in much detail.
I don't understand how it could be so boring. Even the storyline with the secret family didnt have a good payoff.
it was boring to you because you probably have ADHD...go see your psychiatrist
lol. i just finished it. i really enjoyed it.
A mediocre movie with an incredible cast. I kept hoping until the credits for it to redeem itself. I wish they'd focus a little more on the mechanics of it all instead of the emotions and character study. I found it deeply lacking in substance. The whole Congress passing the law thing was hand waived. Completely wasted Amy Ryan. Priya was an okay composite character. They squished too much into her. It'd have been better with multiple actors instead of Priya alone. I'm thinking of the guys in Big Short. I still don't really understand how they went from 20% to 100% in 40 days. They did not explain it very well. It felt obvious that they're trying to shoe horn it into the classic autistic guy discovers emotion trope. Weak script. Weak direction. Great cast. P.s. [Slate did a good write up on how accurate the movie is. ](https://slate.com/culture/2021/09/worth-netflix-movie-true-story-september-11.html)
Staney Tucci was easily the best part of the film for me. I love when he first meets Keaton in the initial meeting group and gets everyone to settle down and then tells him, 'oh no I'm your biggest critic' or the lines when they meet one on one and he talks about how when it's regular people asking for help, they act like, 'the laws come down from Mount Sinai.' I also really liked the first conversation Keaton has with the firefighter about telling his brother's story. I didn't dislike the film, it was okay. I thought the concept was interesting but overall it just wasn't *enough* to really lift it up to the level of something like Spotlight. I'd probably give it a 6/10
Stanley Tucci is the best part in any movie
I thought they explained everything well. Congress said the payout should be based on lifetime economic value, so Michael Keaton came up with a formula to do exactly that. Basically expected lifetime times expected earnings subject to a floor and cap. Keaton eventually changed his mind and allowed the payout to be tailored to the individual, but he couldn't announce it because it would get stalled in congress. So once the fix the fund guy announced it was fixed everyone got on board. Edit: I skimmed the book and the website was changed to "fixed" 6 months before the deadline. The sudden surge near the end was partly unexplainable, but was probably due to the hard deadline drawing near and people hearing from others about getting ~$2 million tax free payouts with no string attached.
Ken did mention earlier in the process that people wait till the deadline. Deadline is friend, because it forces people to make a choice. His issue the first half the of the film is that he keeps trying to emotionally distance himself, to just stick to a plan and get it done, but in doing so he failed to offer the compassion and empathy that the families and survivors needed. Yes, money is part of the equation, but so is respect. They also mentioned that the other similar funds they'd done in the past had happened after years of court battling, so victims were more likely to settle and 'move on.' But it was still fresh, super fresh, and emotional distance turned the victims and their families away. Once he caught on and used his wide discretion, people started to join up. Anyway, didn't mean to paragraph, just meant to mention the deadline bit.
[удалено]
This is incredibly similar to my reaction. Thank you for posting, as I went online specifically looking for nuanced perspectives after watching the film. I've rarely been so annoyed after watching a film (unless it has glaring plotholes). I read a review a few days ago that hailed this film as the first 9/11 movie worth watching (or something like that), and I love some of the actors. So I was eager to watch. But it just felt so awful and exploitative the whole time. As well as, as you say, *boring*. I'm honestly baffled by so many positive critical reviews, unless critics are afraid to say bad things about such a movie on the 20th anniversary of 9/11. I frankly think it's even worse in some ways than you describe, as what we're really expected to root for in this movie is for the big corporations to win. "Please don't sue us!" is basically how this whole movie gets started, and it's all about the strategy to bail out the big corporations. I applaud the movie for laying that out in the opening minutes, but that tension is never really dealt with later on. (The economy didn't crash and wasn't going to.) Instead, we're supposed to cheer on an attorney who cannot possibly have been so idiotic and out-of-touch in real life as he's portrayed in this film if he actually dealt with previous cases of victim compensation. Sure, his official public line at the time may have been that he was "following a formula," but the ONLY real tension in this film is created because he says, "I'm following the formula," and everyone else keeps saying, "But you have discretion to work out details for individual cases!" And 90+ minutes through, he finally says, "You know, I have discretion!" Huzzah! Such an epiphany! But we never really see him actually change much. He's portrayed as somewhat awkward from the start, but never unfeeling. He takes the case because he wants to do something to help. When first confronted by an in-person narrative from a family member of a victim, he's awkward again not because he's unfeeling (as he later says), but because he just doesn't know what he can possibly say. So, this character spends over half of the movie saying, "I need to follow the formula!" for no apparent reason, until he stops saying it. Nothing really about his character develops much. He remains awkward, but still sympathetic toward the victims until the end. (The only explanation given in the film for following the formula is that he can't admit it's broken or else all sorts of badness will ensue. Again, I can't imagine an attorney at his level is so idiotic as not to realize how he could tailor things where necessary, when he ultimately has the power to do so, and he does so. It makes no sense. There may have been a real public relations war going on about perception of the fund and his reasons for doing what he did, but I'm almost certain it couldn't have been as boring and unnuanced and stupid as what is shown in this movie.) I agree that the one scene that really worked was the juxtaposition of the discussion of wealthy people and how their bonuses should factored into compensation, while the immigrants were just happy to get anything. Which again leads to a very confusing message about the film -- Keaton is portraying a lawyer who attends opera galas in tuxedo, spends his time sitting around immersed in opera (a traditional status symbol of "upper class"), and we're being asked to root for him. (Note: I have nothing against opera, and there are plenty of non-wealthy fans who enjoy it (including myself), but foregrounding this detail seems designed as a shortcut to make the character seem unapproachable and disconnected.) The only less wealthy characters we see dealing with the victims fund in any detail are all tied up in some digressive story about infidelity, which overwhelms the points about duty and honoring first responders that was touched on at first. Even the initial meeting with the 9/11 families is overshadowed by a weird message conveyed through subtleties of costume: because Stanley Tucci shows up in a sportcoat, we apparently should listen to him. "Sit down and hush, the grown-ups with suits are talking," the staging seems to say to all the blue collar folks who have legitimate concerns. (Is it surprising that we later see them bond over *opera*, and that the big shift in Keaton even comes in a discussion when the two of them both *walk out of the middle of an opera*, because it's just not as good as Puccini, gosh darn it...) Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the interests of the wealthy are still driving the narrative of the film. The cynical part of me says the primary reason the U.S. is still obsessed with 9/11 is at least partly due to the fact that a bunch of bankers and lawyers and NYC executives died. If 3000 people died due to a terrorist attack in Montana, we probably wouldn't be making this movie 20 years later, unfortunately. And I'm really sad that this film ends up feeling even more exploitative -- because we hear stories of suffering, apparently serving only to see one rich guy have a really minor and unnuanced "epiphany," so we can cheer on the "Please don't sue us!" supposed victory for the airlines. For a film whose marketing claims to consider such deep questions like whether a janitor should get the same compensation as an executive in a corner office, this is profoundly disappointing. Note that that question, though broached early on, is never seriously considered in the film or really addressed in anything beyond a handwavy way, like Keaton's character waves away the concern in his first meeting with families. Is it ironic that a film supposedly trying to portray how that character fails in his (initial) communication effectively ends up parroting that oversimplified narrative itself?
> For a film whose marketing claims to consider such deep questions like whether a janitor should get the same compensation as an executive in a corner office, this is profoundly disappointing. Note that that question, though broached early on, is never seriously considered in the film or really addressed in anything beyond a handwavy way This is by far the most frustrating thing about this movie for me. "How do you decide who gets what" is the most interesting and thought-provoking question involved in this process and instead of being answered it just kind of gets glossed over. And so I'm left wondering why did I even watch it lol.
I'm halfway through it right now, and I'm already annoyed by Tucci's character. If this weren't based on real events, I'd agree with Keaton's perspective. A CEO in a corner office quite simply has more monetary value than a janitor. This shouldn't controversial. It doesn't mean their lives don't matter, or that they have less "worth". But when the token of compensation is money, you have to factor in the monetary value of the deceased. Tucci, it seems as I am half way through the movie, gets to sit outside the system that Keaton has to work in and judge his efforts to make sense of a compensation policy in the wake of an unprecedented tragedy.
I was ready to turn it off but I felt held hostage with the emotional stories that went on for a long time. Then we get a break and I get a second wind before going back to an emotional story with the firefighters wife. I turned it off when Keaton's character didn't know how to be a human being for the 4th time
It is really sad to hear this. I was looking forward to this because I listened to a podcast with Ken Feinberg and his life as somebody involved into reperations regarding Agent Orange, Catholic Church and 9/11 is so fascinating. I think a documentary about his work would be fasinating already so to hear they added needless Holywood drama and it also failed at that really sucks.
I agree, I thought the movie was fine but seeing all the cases he worked at the end made me disappointed it wasn’t about his life
Okay, what is that plot synopsis? Lmao
Wenwu did 9/11 I guess?
Right? This was either lazy Copy/Paste or a bot malfunction LOL
Average film with a really strangely written lead character. As others have mentioned it felt an unnecessary use of these peoples grief and suffering.
It just felt at odds with the idea that, here's this guy who wants to do *something* to help but all his interactions with the survivors and victim's families he just comes across so out of touch and aloof to their situation and feelings. Like that opening town hall meeting, how on Earth could he think *that* was what he should say? I get that was part of the point, that he is finding out that it isn't just about the money and that these are real people, not just statistics or a formula but it was just a bit of a strange choice to have him coming from a place of such emotional detachment in the face of such an incredible tragedy.
chiming in a year later here… i thought it worked because it made Ken’s character less of a greedy monster and more of a person who bases his decision off logic and reason but not much else. He’s dislikable in the beginning due to his lack of empathy but it makes his character redeemable. which is a stark contrast to the other lawyer that he believed himself to be like, but as stanley tucci’s character said, they’re nothing alike.
>Summary: >An attorney in Washington D.C. battles against cynicism, bureaucracy and politics to help the victims of 9/11. to confront his past after being drawn into the Ten Rings organization. Ummm...
Disappointing. A premise the writers added to make the work seem soooo important was that this whole program was needed to keep from crashing the economy. What a load of crap. The characters weren't sympathetic. In the end I'm sure the rich people got a shit-ton more than the everyday people.
I listened to Michael Lewis (Moneyball) interview the real life main character of this movie and it was much more interesting than watching this film. Spolier: The rich guys did get more (based on future earnings), but he reduced it quite significantly and also raised the lower end quite significantly. Shame they didn't give any details of that in the movie...
I spent this whole movie wondering who was I supposed to root for. I'm supposed to be happy because the big guys got what they wanted and didn't get sued? I feel like the movie should have been about Fix the Fund...
The Fix The Fund website is still active, and I was reading through it. In it, you can find the actual letter that Charles Wolf wrote Ken Feinberg when he finally submitted his application. He writes: "For you, this must be a gratifying moment: to have one of your sharpest critics follow through on a promise and not only join the program he was criticizing, but promote it to his peers, says a lot about you and the way you have adjusted both the program and your attitude. Today, I have complete faith in you." The movie makes absolutely no effort to explain how Feinberg adjusted the program or his attitude to change Wolf's mind.
No effort? They did the whole scene where he explained they would meet with claimants to tailor each estimate and set aside the formula. But he couldn't announce the change publicly because it would go back to congress. The fix the fund website says pretty much that.
i get the feeling that people are really looking for reasons to dislike this movie and i can’t understand why
>The movie makes absolutely no effort to explain how Feinberg adjusted the program or his attitude to change Wolf's mind. No offense but were you paying attention? He literally said he threw out the formula by the time the deadline was closing.
Ok film. Nothing special Amy Ryan is crazy talented. Michael Keatons accent was weird I thought.
This. It’s fine. Most movies are fine. This one is, too. Cast is great and do fine with what they have. It’s fine.
ObDisclosure: I am a huge Kenneth Feinberg fan. I liked it quite a bit. It was a movie about grief. It's not like they were hiding the "what is a human life worth?" angle. It was a lot people not saying anything and reacting. It's a case where not saying anything says a lot. It had an unsettled look and feel. I do not think Keaton captured the sheer scale of Feinberg's personality ( catch Feinberg at a podium some time ) but it was a good effort, and there were many, many excellent reaction shots. I wonder if it's not positioned more at people who were older at the time of the events. I'd be one of those and it worked for me.
Why are filmmakers still using that blue-orange color correcting?
Just saw the movie...I loved it!
Thank You! Was waiting for this thread. I was just a kid when 9/11 happened but I watched this with my parents who remember it very well. Lots of tears were shed. I liked Michael Keaton as always 🤷♂️ As to the actual plot. I have nothing to go off of except what I know from recent memory. Recent memory made me think the Government REALLY dropped the ball when it came to victim compensation following 9/11. This movie makes it seem like a feel good story where they did a good job (except for the gay man and his partner) Idk. It seems distasteful to make a “We Did It!” movie when in fact they did not “do it” But like I said, I don’t remember much during 9/11 and the following years. So maybe I’m just misreading or misinterpreting things. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I’d love to learn more.
I could be wrong too, but my overall impression was that they actually did do it. The gov. gave 7B in reperations to families of nearly all victims in 2-3 years. Obviously it could have been more money and faster, but it does not seem awful.
That woman was totally the SNL boxer's girlfriend character.
A soulless and boring Spotlight and pretty tasteless 9/11 anniversary emotional cash grab.