REVIEW: THE DESCENDANTS

Solid review Tim - thanks for the write up. Liked it/linked to it on FB, as well.

Saw it this afternoon and it's probably my #1 film of the year.  You're 100% right in how this film takes material that you'd usually find in a soap opera but keep it grounded firmly in reality.  So happy to have Payne making films again.

Note: one of the writers is Jim Rash, whom many on here would recognize as Dean Pelton on "Community".

And another writer on this is the excellently named NAT FAXON. You may know him better as a bit comic actor in the Broken Lizard films, Walk Hard and Bad Teacher. Oddly enough, no other film writing credits.

NAT FAXON: MAN OF ACTION.

Damn... I have a choice of going to a screening of this... or HUGO.  Both are on Monday at 7 pm.  WHICH DO I CHOOSE!?

Descendants is going into limited release tomorrow. They'll be going wide over the next few weeks. New Scorsese always takes precedent but that's just my bias opinion. That said, Descendants is fucking splendid so you can't go wrong.

Thanks!

Yea, it seems like both would be good choices.  One thing that is leaning me towards HUGO is the fact that it's being shown in a better theater than The Descendants is.

I wonder if it'll be in 3D...

After the screening I attended this past Tuesday, I walked out of the theater concluding that Payne can't make bad films. I've heard this described as minor in his oeuvre, but I don't know if that's really true; it fits alongside his past human examinations perfectly even though it plays far nicer than a Sideways or an About Schmidt, being a story about a man struggling to cope as life's walls close in on him.

My biggest takeaway is the film's rumblings on family, both in how it identifies and perceives family. There's a through-line here about family being the people who without question support you (and vice versa) in times of duress; Matt's almost a stranger to his daughters, but they each inevitably come to rely on each other for support and spiritual nourishment as they all labor to confront Elizabeth's impending death and come out the other side more whole than they were before. Their alienation is irrelevant, because no matter how emotionally distant t they are from each other they each respond to the call of family and come together as they do in the end, on a note of comfort and hope. (And deliciousness. Ice cream!)

Consider how closely they bond in light of how Matt interacts with his cousins-- who mostly put on a facade of family so long as things go their way. Beau Bridges does wonderful, if brief, work here transitioning from the easy-going "hey buddy!" cousin to the kind of man who would threaten his own kin. That's where The Descendants' message lies.

I'm actually of the exact same mind as you about Clooney and Woodley-- Clooney's great here, in my opinion working against type, but Woodley's a fucking revelation. I really hope to see her in more pictures of this caliber in the future; she's able to stand next to one of the best actors working today and rise just ever so much above him.

I really liked this.  To be honest, I didn't really get what the concept of 'descendants' really had to do with Matt King's family life. but agracru's wonderful post went a long way in helping me to see the connections.  Payne's relaxed tone to the material (and the soothing Hawaiian music on the soundtrack) never got me emotional about anything that was happening on screen, but it made me really love the characters and enjoy my time with them.  

That relaxing feeling of the film made me not mind the slower pace so much.  It's just about 2 hours long, but I thought it was longer.  

I went into the film pretty cold, so aside from the appearance of Robert Forester (from the trailers), each new character that showed up was a fun surprise.  Matthew Lilliard!  Judy Greer!  Beau Bridges!  Clooney and Woodley are so good together.  I really wanted more scenes of Matt and Alexandra King bonding.  

We need Payne working more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

 

We need Payne working more.

Payne did this really great short in between Descendants and Sideways:

There was also a scifi project he'd been working that comes up in my Jim Burke interview (not yet up due to laziness) that they shelved because they couldn't get the CG where they needed it to be. 

Kind of neat that Payne wants to play in the science fiction sandbox at some point.

I can't think of a better film to gather up the family with this Thanksgiving and going to see. It's not a rose colored glasses look at family, but it is ultimately more positive than anything else. Clooney is fantastic, Woodley is scene stealing (and will also be quite the hottie in a few years). I think this is Payne's most accessible film to date. Election is dark satire, the main guys in Sideways are kind of jerks and Nicholson is too much of a sad sack, out of touch guy in Schmidt. Haven't seen Citizen Ruth, so I can't comment. I get Matt King. I haven't been in his shoes, but I get him, from wanting to do good with his daughters but not knowing how, to getting so angry at his wife for putting him in the situation he's in, to dealing with pesky relatives.

As for the title, Descendants. What we leave behind, the values we instill in them. It could be, and is, family in Matt's case, but also the land he's keeping. He wants to keep it in his family, so that his descendants can go there and maybe someday, camp on the beach.

I love how Payne stayed away from the usual sitcom-esque 'lol dad trying to do domestic tasks' that would plague a lesser movie. This is a confident film-maker and a great writer who gets the human condition. He's only made 5 movies? God damn, we absolutely need more of him.

I loved the shit out of this movie. It's been too goddamn long since we've had a Payne movie, and I genuinely believe Sideways is one of the masterpieces of the last ten years: there is just so much in that movie to love (it is definitely less accessible than this one, though). This might be the ideal "dramedy." Every single performance was flawless, the photography was perfectly restrained and yet didn't hesitate to be beautiful when it felt like it, it was unbelievably funny in a totally human way and just very thematically taught and emotionally involving. I literally think it fulfills nearly everything single thing Payne probably set out to achieve when he conceived of it.

Clooney better win the damn Oscar. Seriously, this is the best I've ever seen him. Easily the performance of the year (along with Dunst in Melancholia) -- I've always liked the guy, but I didn't know he was this good when called upon to be. This is probably my #2 or #3 of the year, with Melancholia at #1 and Drive kicking around in there as well.

I also think you nailed it with your comment about "descendants," Doc Happenin. Descendants is basically just a synonym for "family," and his choice, which is a pretty simple one, is for familial continuity over whatever -- financial demands, pressure, forward movement, etc. It's dealt with very nicely and almost entirely subtextually, and I even think the movie would be hesitant to go for such a symbolic reading since it tries to be so real and relatable. But the subtext is there, and I think it's perfectly developed throughout the film.

IMO, Clooney has way too many acting "tics" to ever be considered great.  It started on ER...he tilts his head down and looks up with his eyes...happens in every movie.  He's always George Clooney, never the character he's portraying.

Have you seen this one? I think this performance might change your mind. I generally thought the same thing about Clooney until I saw this movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rainbowtrout 

IMO, Clooney has way too many acting "tics" to ever be considered great.  It started on ER...he tilts his head down and looks up with his eyes...happens in every movie.  He's always George Clooney, never the character he's portraying.

Soderbergh cured Clooney of the head bob in 1998. I'd encourage you to see OUT OF SIGHT, SOLARIS, and O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU where he genuinely acts sans these tics and does a more than good job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Happenin 

As for the title, Descendants. What we leave behind, the values we instill in them. It could be, and is, family in Matt's case, but also the land he's keeping. He wants to keep it in his family, so that his descendants can go there and maybe someday, camp on the beach.

This makes sense, but then, what of the relatives who were hoping for King to sell the land? What of the Hawaiian shirt-wearing clan led by Beau Bridges? What if they were counting, nay, depending on that money? Considering how Payne seems somewhat attuned to upper and middle class lifestyles, I found his neglect of these characters somewhat unforgivable. King's sentimental streak keeps him from signing that paper, and that comes across, but Payne doesn't give a fair shake to all the desperate residents living in what looks like a sad, rainy, poverty-stricken Hawaii.

It's what's kept me from all Payne films, for the most part, in his decision to present these fully realized characters, and then half-a-sketch of a peripheral supporting cast. I thought Matthew Lillard's cowardly philanderer was a complete dick, but totally human in his crack-up with Clooney. And it was totally believable to see his offscreen decision to not show up in the film's final scenes, true to the character and the story.

But then there's someone like the daughter's boyfriend/buddy who just cracks wise, smiles like an asshole and makes inappropriate comments. A late scene establishes that he has his own struggles, and it humanizes him in that it makes him have a shred of empathy, but for what? It's his lack of intelligence in relation to other characters that makes him a one-dimensional douchebag, to the point where that one moment of realization he has effectively ends any contributions he has to the story, despite hanging around for the final half hour of the movie. I don't think that was fair to his character, nor was it fair to the other characters that they would humor his cackling ass the entire time.

I used to really really really love George Clooney, but he's starting to bore me.

I don't think we're supposed to assume these people are starving for food or in desperate need of the money -- I think we're mostly supposed to view them as a bunch of really rich layabouts who want a quick bundle of cash fast, and are willing to throw away their familial history to get it. I agree that maybe this could have used some more clarification, but what with the power and influence wielded by someone like Beau Bridges' character and Clooney telling us that his relatives are amongst the most influential people in Hawaii, "so don't be deceived by the Hawaiian shirts," etc., I think there's evidence to show the cousins are for the most part quite wealthy, and are selling the land mostly just to become more rich, familial continuity be damned.

So it's not like he was fucking his whole family over by keeping the land. That would be pretty weird, and would pretty much ruin the entire point of the movie.

On the level of the characters, I dunno about your criticisms. I thought Lillard was pretty well-drawn, considering he has about ten minutes of screen time, and it's not like Payne was painting a deep conflicted portrait of agonized infidelity anyway. The supporting cast, I would say, are largely there for (some really great) comic relief, and while they do add to the dramatic backbone of the film, most of the weight is on Clooney's shoulders since the film's more or less a character study.

I do agree with Gabe's criticisms of the lunkheaded boyfriend.  We get this scene later on that shows he's going through some stuff too, but that doesn't really have much to do with how thoughtlessly rude he was earlier in the film.  He came off a bit too much as tacked-on comic relief.

Now, I can easily brush that off as the kid still being... you know... a kid!  But his behavior seemed to change whenever the story deemed it necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

I don't think we're supposed to assume these people are starving for food or in desperate need of the money -- I think we're mostly supposed to view them as a bunch of really rich layabouts who want a quick bundle of cash fast, and are willing to throw away their familial history to get it. I agree that maybe this could have used some more clarification, but what with the power and influence wielded by someone like Beau Bridges' character and Clooney telling us that his relatives are amongst the most influential people in Hawaii, "so don't be deceived by the Hawaiian shirts," etc., I think there's evidence to show the cousins are for the most part quite wealthy, and are selling the land mostly just to become more rich, familial continuity be damned.

 

So it's not like he was fucking his whole family over by keeping the land. That would be pretty weird, and would pretty much ruin the entire point of the movie.

 

On the level of the characters, I dunno about your criticisms. I thought Lillard was pretty well-drawn, considering he has about ten minutes of screen time, and it's not like Payne was painting a deep conflicted portrait of agonized infidelity anyway. The supporting cast, I would say, are largely there for (some really great) comic relief, and while they do add to the dramatic backbone of the film, most of the weight is on Clooney's shoulders since the film's more or less a character study.

Well, there's the thing - we only really meet Beau Bridges' character. All those families at the mercy of King's decision - we don't know any of their circumstances. I don't recall anything in the film denigrating them as being rich layabouts. But that's a loss either way: if there's more dialogue suggesting they don't give a shit about the land and are already wealthy, then it's an incredibly easy decision for King to make, and the amount of families serve no purpose in the story except to remind King of his potential legacy (and they don't).

I think knowing a little more who these people are would have made his decision to sign or not sign far more dramatically compelling. When they get pissed he doesn't sign, I also would have liked to see their reactions. Even if they are wealthy, that's a huge deal, putting your finances in the arms of one man and hoping he makes the right decision. I mean, the movie's so lightweight that you empathize with King and his struggles, but you can't help but turn around and say, "Well, his life isn't THAT bad," something I think Payne realizes as well, since he doesn't play the Tragedy or Sadness notes too hard. By making the other relatives similarly independently wealthy, it robs ANY of that material of dramatic weight. I honestly could not give a shit if he signed that paper or not.

Also, I think you misunderstood. I WAS praising how they handled the Lillard character, and I think Payne DID do a great job showing that conflicted family man crisis he suffers in a limited amount of screen-time. But I don't think this story is SO HEAVY that it needs (one-dimensional?) comic relief from the other characters, especially because Clooney's King, and some of the other characters, are so sharply realized.

I always feel like some of Payne's characters are SO vivid and fully-realized that he just passes out after filling them in. Like he spent a full day outlining Nicholson's Schmidt and then, at 11:59 PM, he said, "Eh, fuck it. Dermot Mulroney is gonna play a joke."

That's fair. I agree with you on that, I think Payne could've filled in the backgrounds of the other cousins a little more. But I disagree that his life isn't that bad, since it probably really sucks when your wife cheats on you and then dies and your kids are rapidly becoming very messed up people, and I would say that was more than enough dramatic weight to sustain a movie for me. The sub-plot with the cousins is, emotionally, so much less important than what happens with his family in the main plot that to me it seems almost petty to focus on it. They obviously echo each other, but in many ways the sub-plot's there only as thematic window-dressing and is otherwise rather extraneous, story-wise, and I think I'm pretty okay with that. 

I mean, King refusing to sign is a symbolic gesture, basically. The emotional backbone of the movie is found elsewhere, while the land stuff has more obviously thematic intentions -- which are, I suppose, in some ways compromised by not clarifying the wealth of the cousins or their financial situation, but not in any really major way as I see it. I don't think you were necessary supposed to be really wrapped up in what happened to that land, since it's more important to understand that King now values family -- keeping the land is just a graceful way of implying that change.

I think you're also right that Payne tends to give peripheral characters the short end of the stick, in terms of development. I guess I'm just okay with the fact that they populate the periphery as being somewhat larger-than-life "types," though, since the stereotypes are usually so obvious that it's clear Payne is playing on them -- i.e., the joke is a stereotype somehow being real, rather than a stereotype being played for laughs by itself. And they still do feel human (for the most part), which is the important thing.

I also would have liked to see more of Rob Huebel, he's hilarious, and they gave him nothing to do in this movie. If you're going to have a one-dimensional supporting character, at least have him played by a really funny dude.

A solid film - but I'm on the fence about it being Best Picture material. Its flaws are few but as noted above (Sid's character), they're pretty glaring. Clooney was truly amazing in this; easily his most successful work in shedding his movie star/celebrity persona. The theater I viewed this at had a few articles about the movie posted, and they echoed what I noticed during the film: wardrobe was critical in communicating and describing Matt King. Clooney's physique was completely downplayed with oversized shirts, pants pulled a bit too high, a not-so-great haircut. Did quite a bit to make him feel like an ordindary guy. I don't mean to take away from Clooney's actual acting, which was, IMNSHO, definitely Best Actor stuff. As a father of two daughters, I bought his performance, reactions, and actions. 

I don't have a lot to say about Woodley that wasn't said above; she was a revelation, and took what seemed (and could have been) a fairly stereotypical role and gave breadth and depth to it. 

One of the things I was thinking during the contract (non)signing scene was "What if some of the cousins desperately need this money? What if they have a sick wife/child/parent?" As with other posters, I understand the thematic role Matt's decision played, but I felt like the film could've done a bit more (even just a few lines of dialogue at some point) to help the viewer more fully understand the family's dispositions.

Scenes near the end nailed me pretty well, emotionally: Elizabeth's dad, trying to say goodbye to his comatose daughter; Scotty learning her mom isn't going to get well; and Judy Greer's five minutes of gold. Clooney sealed it all with just a few lines of dialogue to his dying wife, and delivered them perfectly.

Two criticisms, one minor, the other more significant. First, I HATED the music. Many times during the film it pretty much took me right out of the movie. Again, I understand the choice - Payne likely wanted to make this as Hawaii-specific as he could, and wanted to underscore the theme of belonging to the island - but for me, the music seemed like a forced way to try and lighten the film in ways it didn't need. The film had plenty of humor (albeit a good deal of it sort of slanted and sad), and the weirdly cheery Hawaiian score worked against the weight of the subject matter. I would've preferred something more low key and more traditionally acoustic based. At the end of the day, though, I know this is a very subjective choice and matter of taste. Second, I felt that the cinematography was quite flat - nearly Kevin Smith levels of just "there." There were a few shots that stood out - but you have to actively work to make landscape shots of Hawaii look bad, so I'm not sure how much credit to give Payne & Co. there. I LOVED the last shot, with Matt and his daughters on the couch, the background out of focus. Great choice there, underscoring Matt's change and how his world has contracted to focus on his daughters. I also liked the brief shot that seemed to be looking up from Elizabeth's ashes to Matt's face.  The rest of the film, I think, suffered from some very workmanlike framing and focus choices. 

This is only the second Payne film I've seen, and it's made me interested to see more. Liked this far, far more than SIDEWAYS.

Watch Election!  Please!

Why should the wealth of the cousins determine whether Matt's decision is easy or hard? He's saying no to his family regardless-- that's flat-out difficult, especially when that decision comes down to finances. It doesn't matter how much the cousins stand to gain from the land transaction; when Matt refuses to sell, he goes against the wishes of the herd and that inevitably drives a wedge between him and the members of the King clan who wish for him to sign the papers. Maybe speaking purely from a personal standpoint, Matt's choice is easy for himself since he's not an ostentatious man and probably wouldn't change his lifestyle in the slightest post-sale, but he's not just making the decision for himself and his daughters.

Family should support you through anything, but money, unsurprisingly, can create tension and conflict even in blood relations. Hell, my own family made a similar (though much smaller) deal a few years back that led to some bad feelings between more than a few of us. The reason there's inherent dramatic weight to Matt refusing to sell away his birthright is because doing so makes him something of a social pariah to his own flesh and blood; whether they need the money or not is totally irrelevant. If the cousins are generally well-off, then Matt's decision denies them extraneous wealth which they don't need and which would come at the expense of something a lot more precious than wads of cash; if some of them are facing financial difficulties, then Matt's decision sends a message that they can't rely on inheritance to get by. Either way he's making a statement, whether intentional or not, by reneging on his promise to sign, and regardless he's putting himself at odds with everyone related to him who isn't Scottie, Alexandra, or the few who really didn't want to see the transaction go through in the first place. I don't think the film needed anything more than Beau Bridges threatening to come after Matt with the rest of the cousins to make Matt's decision matter as much as it should have.

I also don't really think that the reaction of the cousins constitutes enough of the movie's point to demand that much more development. Like Mulder said, it's window dressing.

For my part, I equated Sid's behaviors with those of Alexandra and Scottie. Like them, he's confronted heavy emotional stuff very recently in his life; like them, he's acting out over it. His little moment with Matt toward the end kind of shone a light on why he acted like such a prick earlier in the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

Why should the wealth of the cousins determine whether Matt's decision is easy or hard? He's saying no to his family regardless-- that's flat-out difficult, especially when that decision comes down to finances. It doesn't matter how much the cousins stand to gain from the land transaction; when Matt refuses to sell, he goes against the wishes of the herd and that inevitably drives a wedge between him and the members of the King clan who wish for him to sign the papers. Maybe speaking purely from a personal standpoint, Matt's choice is easy for himself since he's not an ostentatious man and probably wouldn't change his lifestyle in the slightest post-sale, but he's not just making the decision for himself and his daughters.

 

Family should support you through anything, but money, unsurprisingly, can create tension and conflict even in blood relations. Hell, my own family made a similar (though much smaller) deal a few years back that led to some bad feelings between more than a few of us. The reason there's inherent dramatic weight to Matt refusing to sell away his birthright is because doing so makes him something of a social pariah to his own flesh and blood; whether they need the money or not is totally irrelevant. If the cousins are generally well-off, then Matt's decision denies them extraneous wealth which they don't need and which would come at the expense of something a lot more precious than wads of cash; if some of them are facing financial difficulties, then Matt's decision sends a message that they can't rely on inheritance to get by. Either way he's making a statement, whether intentional or not, by reneging on his promise to sign, and regardless he's putting himself at odds with everyone related to him who isn't Scottie, Alexandra, or the few who really didn't want to see the transaction go through in the first place. I don't think the film needed anything more than Beau Bridges threatening to come after Matt with the rest of the cousins to make Matt's decision matter as much as it should have.

 

I also don't really think that the reaction of the cousins constitutes enough of the movie's point to demand that much more development. Like Mulder said, it's window dressing.

 

For my part, I equated Sid's behaviors with those of Alexandra and Scottie. Like them, he's confronted heavy emotional stuff very recently in his life; like them, he's acting out over it. His little moment with Matt toward the end kind of shone a light on why he acted like such a prick earlier in the film.

Everything you said about family is true. But in "The Descendents," rich or poor, the family just aren't given a chance to be real characters, with only a little bit of lip service being paid to Beau Bridges. I mean, whether they're wealthy or not, this is a HUGE decision for King to make on their part. The fact that they're reduced to a sketchy plot complication lowers the stakes considerably. And AGAIN, it's especially glaring as UNFORGIVABLE window dressing because King is such a sharp, fully-realized person.

It's the equivalent of a guy kicking down a potted plant - the plant is alive, but it's just a dull inanimate object with no feelings or opinions to us. What he's doing SEEMS cruel, but because we don't really see that many negative consequences, who cares?

Also, I'm just going to flat-out disagree with you on that last point about Sid. I think the moment with Matt deepened his character, but it didn't necessarily reveal why he was such a callous moron. It's not only that he's tactless - Payne clearly wants us to think Sid is kind of a willful idiot as well. And that becomes pretty hard to justify when he's just going to fade into the background near the end of the film.

I guess what I want to know is why we really give a shit about the cousins when it's not their story being told. Stakes are pretty clearly set-up for Matt; I'd say that that's all that's really necessary given how peripheral the cousins are. Payne's invested in Matt's narrative, cousins be damned, and I think giving them more material than they had at the end would have been kind of distracting.

I wonder if there's much in the way of deleted material when it came to the cousins or if their slight presence in the film was by design...

I loved this movie!  I cried I think four times.  The most affecting I think was when Scottie found out that her mother was not coming back.

Anyways, this has been a fun discussion to read.  About the cousins, King mentioned that most of them had squandered their money over the years.  It was when he talked about how he only lived off his lawyer/legal salary.  I liked that quote (paraphrasing) give your children enough money to do something, but not so much that they can do nothing.  I think I may have murdered that quote.  I got the idea that the cousins had plenty of money to live on.  Bridges characters owned that condo that Speers was in, and he was our cypher for the cousins that wanted to sell.  There was also a faction of the cousins that wanted to keep the land and not sell to anyone, so I'm pretty sure they were not hurting at all for money.  That just told me that his cousins were made up an average family that had differering values.  Majority want more money, and a faction want the legacy.  Like a real family and real people.

That feeling of the movie, that feeling of....I don't know how to say it.  These people felt real, and their reactions to things.  If anything King was was more reserved than I would imagine a real person would react I guess.  Like how he didn't tell his wife's father about the cheating.  I was tense everytime his father in law was on screen with Sid and Alexandra, especially that last scene they were together.  I just knew they were going to tell him.  Glad they didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

I guess what I want to know is why we really give a shit about the cousins when it's not their story being told. Stakes are pretty clearly set-up for Matt; I'd say that that's all that's really necessary given how peripheral the cousins are. Payne's invested in Matt's narrative, cousins be damned, and I think giving them more material than they had at the end would have been kind of distracting.

Dude, it's storytelling 101. Everyone has their side to the story. Those are actual people, not plot contrivances.

Matt King is a real person. His daughter is a real person. Matthew Lillard's real estate dick is a real person. This is a movie populated with real people. You can't just turn around and say, Oh, these important people that figure into the plot? No character. You're shortchanging your drama, your shortchanging the story, you're shortchanging the characters that are already set-up.

Again, Payne has this problem, because several characters in the Payne filmography have such full, healthy lives. And then someone pops up and exists solely to be a punchline, or an obstacle to confront - the naked trucker in Sideways, Dermot Mulroney in About Schmidt. It's the difference between making a movie and doing sketch comedy, which I think is interesting, given how Payne would probably thrive in that format.

If I hadn't seen the movie for myself I would at this point assume that Payne provides absolutely no voice to the cousins whatsoever-- but he does. Circumventing the condescension, yes, the cousins are real people, and they're real people with a real voice in the form of Beau Bridges (hell, there's another cousin who shows up as something of a face for the cousins as well, albeit with much less presence and impact). Cousin Hugh's inclusion goes a long way toward justifying the existence of Matt's family as more than simple plot contrivances, I think. Maybe their hearts are in the wrong place, and maybe Hugh crosses a line threatening Matt at the end, but in his shoes I'd be pretty pissed too. Hugh goes overboard, but he's still palatable. If you're not considering him as something of a representative of the cousins, maybe that doesn't solve the problem, but to me he pretty naturally fell into that role.

You're asking for a broader circumference of the cousins, which I get-- I just don't think it would have added to the film what you think it would have.

I want Hawaiian relative character banners. No less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teitr Styrr 

If anything King was was more reserved than I would imagine a real person would react I guess.  Like how he didn't tell his wife's father about the cheating.  I was tense everytime his father in law was on screen with Sid and Alexandra, especially that last scene they were together.  I just knew they were going to tell him.  Glad they didn't.

There's a lot of shock for Matt King. He's dealing with a HUGE decision for his entire, extended family. He's just been told his wife will not ever recover from the comatose state she's in. And he's just been told she's been cheating on him for some time. Additionally, we know he's an attorney who's made it a point to live off what he earns rather than coasting on the family money. We can make a good guess he's probably not an overly emotive guy to begin with, and the situation's overwhelming. It's a very real and common reaction to pack things in rather than explode. 

The scene where Matt could've told his FIL about the affair was so well done - Clooney just knocked it out of the park there, with body movement and facial expressions alone. You could see Matt wanting to throw it in the FIL's face, but choosing not to because he still loved his wife, his family, enough to not sully the last days with dirt and meanness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

The scene where Matt could've told his FIL about the affair was so well done - Clooney just knocked it out of the park there, with body movement and facial expressions alone. You could see Matt wanting to throw it in the FIL's face, but choosing not to because he still loved his wife, his family, enough to not sully the last days with dirt and meanness.

Oh, absolutely!  I loved the entire portion of that story with the father in law and the possibility of telling him about the cheating.  It would not solve a single thing in the long run if someone told him, but this movie felt so real I thought someone might slip up, or do it angrily.  Like I said before I was soooo tense in the final scene with Sid and Alex and the father in law.  Then the tense feeling was gone when they didn't tell and then...right after that scene, when the three of them are looking in on the father in law saying goodbye to his little girl for the final time.  Beautiful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

I want Hawaiian relative character banners. No less.

Hawaiian shirts all blowin' in the wind. Backs all turned to the viewer.

Cousin Hugh. Cousin Ralph. Cousin Milo. The Descendants.

I was really looking forward to this movie, and despite a lot of good things in its favor, The Descendants -- like Matt King's wayward wife -- just lays there comatose for most of its duration before dying an unceremonious death.

While the film does give attention to local culture and concerns more so than your average "set in Hawai'i" film, it still feels too Hollywood for my tastes. The promise of that opening narration/montage of Hawaii poverty/traffic/diversity was never really fulfilled; it just seemed like lip service once the story proper began. I appreciate Matt's "haole as shit"  declaration at the end, but let's face it, the movie is just too fucking WHITE. As someone who has lived in Hawai'i, that really struck me as false. The non-white characters were window dressing, slowly disappearing as the film went on.

I went in knowing nothing about the movie other than a bit of plot skimmed from the Phoenix's 3 1/2 out of 4 star review. I liked Sideways a lot, and remember liking Election. Hard to forget that scene with the superimposed face...

Anyways, I didn't expect I would get a movie quite this bad. With respect to the people that liked it, I just don't get the appeal at all. It honestly felt to me like an overblown phony Hollywood weepy with some weak sitcom-style humor crammed in. No, I don't think little kids swearing is funny.

Since I was trapped in the theater (didn't want to make my mom upset and walk out, but I came pretty close), I tried my best to go along with it. And yes, there were a handfull of amusing moments, but the vast majority was dismal. Besides the soul-crushing, unrelenting acoustic soundtrack (even worse than in Away We Go), and the weak humor, there was nothing for me to grab on to dramatically. It all just felt so forced. I'm not sure whether getting to know the mother before she died would've helped the movie, but it's all i can come up with. As it is, I saw a bunch of talented actors trying their best to fake it and wring some tears out of a pretty thin and weak script.

Of course, this being a Hollywood movie, you can't simply have a family drama that's about family drama, it has to have a bullshit real estate land deal tacked on to heighten things and give it a real "plot". Anybody who has ever seen a movie before knew where that plotline was heading as soon they drove on to the family's Hawaiian property.

One thing that I noticed even the old ladies and other mainstream folk chatting about on the way out was how nonstop the weepiness was. It felt like half the movie somebody was crying onscreen, or the movie was trying to manipulate the viewer into tearing up via the most blunt means possible.This thing seriously needed a few minutes of levity at the end at least, one stupid "life goes on" shot doesn't cut it. A big problem were the constant shots of the mom's corpse. We get it. We saw the gross crust on the lips and the pus on the neckhole the first time. You don't have to show us twenty times.

I totally agree. No disrespect to anyone who honestly loved it, but I'm baffled by the high critical praise. It just felt like a totally unnecessary movie.

Maybe there's an argument to be found in the Hollywai/Hawaiiwood comment, but I don't think Clooney's opening narration is meant to intone that The Descendants is about exploring the realities of living in Hawaii. If anything else I think it establishes his cynicism at the film's start.

I give credit to Payne and company for making sincere efforts to "localize" The Descendants in a more detail-oriented way than, say, the current Hawaii Five-O's earnest, but mostly lunkheaded and tone deaf efforts. Even so, the movie still feels phony, not to mention problematic. I never expected the film to explore "the realities of living in Hawaii," but if you're going to set a movie in a state where whites are the minority and interracial marriage is incredibly common, there's a goddamn lot wrong with hiring dozens of white mainland actors who keep their own regional/newscaster accents even though they're supposed to have lived on the islands for generations. For Chrissakes, British actors at least attempt  to do regional accents when portraying Americans in period/contemporary pieces. But I guess that's Haole-wood, for ya.

To tell the truth, all of this would matter much less to me if the movie was actually good.

Originally Posted by MichaelM First, I HATED the music. Many times during the film it pretty much took me right out of the movie. Again, I understand the choice - Payne likely wanted to make this as Hawaii-specific as he could, and wanted to underscore the theme of belonging to the island - but for me, the music seemed like a forced way to try and lighten the film in ways it didn't need. The film had plenty of humor (albeit a good deal of it sort of slanted and sad), and the weirdly cheery Hawaiian score worked against the weight of the subject matter. I would've preferred something more low key and more traditionally acoustic based. At the end of the day, though, I know this is a very subjective choice and matter of taste.

Hey, at least they didn't use the omnipresent Israel Kamakawiwo'ole cover of Over the Rainbow.

I liked it well enough, but for Payne's first film in seven years, coming after Sideways, it was a pretty big disappointment. Emotionally, it just didn't hit me hard enough. Let me put it this way: I watched the movie with my dad. It should have made us both weep. His mother, my grandmother, just died, and a ton of the hospital and death stuff in that movie hits extremely close to home. Fuck, I spent a week sitting in her hospital room that looked basically the same as the family's final vigil over the mother in the film. It didn't work. Meanwhile, fucking Muppets made him cry.

Also, does anyone else feel that the entire land inheritance plot could have been cut out without really changing much? It takes up so little relative screentime; the movie forgot it for a really long time after the initial meeting between the cousins. And I do agree that their part feels too slight; what's the point of having a quick-cut introduction to them all if none of them will be characterized?

An interesting thing is that this is Payne's first movie about really rich people. All of his other characters are pretty much exactly middle class, with the possible exception of Schmidt. But even he's not nearly as well-off as King is here. So I would never say that a filmmaker can't make a movie about the upper class, but it is interesting that Payne chose to situate his one film about the upper class in an area where class issues are also very specifically race issues.

As for Kyle Reese's criticisms, all I can say is that the movie probably just didn't work for you. If you also hated Away We Go, then that makes a lot of sense. I don't get how you can say the movie is aggressively weepy, though, since it is ostensibly a comedy and only really gets "weepy" at the very end (and to me, it manages to be exceptionally restrained in those moments as well). All the other potentially sad moments are played mostly for laughs, which is why a lot of people think Payne's comedy is cruel and often straight-up black.

Slightly odd question: Whiteboy, Marlowe, and Kyle, are you parents? And more specifically, are you parents to daughters? My guess is no, and whether it's a bug or feature of the film that it doesn't appeal as strongly to non-parents is up for debate.

And let me add: I'm asking not in the sense that there's something wrong with you if you're not, but it would explain a good deal about the differences in reception (for some). Paralleling the reactions to SCOTT PILGRIM - which I could not identify with AT ALL, whether you mean the gamer culture or the current crop of 20-30 somethings - I'm wondering if the film simply doesn't translate as well to universal audiences.

Also: while I'm a sap for father-daughter stuff, this film didn't wring any real tears from me....until the very end, as noted above. The scene wherein Judy Greer's character lost it, the younger daughter learned of her mom's fate, and Matt saying goodbye all moved me. They didn't reduce me to a sobbing mess, but I also don't think they were meant to. We're seeing most things through Matt's perspective, and Matt's obviously a guy not prone to emotional excess. 

Finally, I don't understand the critique of the film needing lighter moments. I think it actually had quite a few; they just weren't, by and large, slap-your-knee and spit-out-your-soda types of laughs. Matt doing his goofy run to his friend's house upon learning of the wife's affair struck me as very funny - not because the film's mocking Matt, but there was a funny desperation to it, and his insistence on running RIGHT THEN, instead of driving or calling, just struck me as darkly humorous.

Ha ha god no I'm not a parent at all. That's an interesting point, though. But like I said, there's a different level on which I feel the film should have spoken to me, and failed at.

It's total dark comedy, assuming the definition of that is basically that we're expected to find the misfortune of others laughable. King's just found out he's been cheated on, he's in a terribly confused state at that moment, and we're expected to laugh at him? But somehow Payne injects an undercutting note of humanness into it, where even though we're laughing at him we might also see a little of ourselves there -- which makes it okay, and more funny in the end.

Edit to add: I don't have kids either but still loved it.

I would not call this a comedy. It's the least comedic film Payne's done, even less than Schmidt. In fact, if there was one nitpick I had it would be that I wish it had a little more of Sideways' cynical observational comedy. 

Am I alone in thinking Clooney's choice to not sign over the land had as much to do with not wanting to sell to Matthew Lillard as it did with preserving Hawaiian natural heritage? I liked that it was complicated. 

But it's a really good movie. Not the equal of Sideways, perhaps, but a very enjoyable, unusual, and deftly made film about interesting things you don't often see in movies. Clooney and his kids were terrific in it, and a great many scenes had a lot of surprising truth in them. I also thought Payne did an excellent job of establishing the location. It felt to me like the most accurate depiction of Hawaii I've seen in a movie. Very set in time and place. I wouldn't call it my favorite of the year, but I wouldn't argue with someone else saying that, and of what I've seen this year, Clooney probably has my vote for Best Actor.

It's a good movie, with two great central performances from Clooney and Woodley, but I felt like the performances outweighed the story.  I think I would have liked the Hawaiian background and the idea of their Hawaiian heritage to have been more integral to the story.

Clooney amazes me.  A lot of actors, you can just see them going from line to line, but you can see the wheels moving in Clooney's head.  He comes to the next line organically.

I"ll go with the consensus that this is a really good movie, but not on par with Sideways or About Schmidt. Really loved Clooney, Woodley, Forster and most of the cast. I too feel the Real Estate subplot felt a bit tacked on and un-necessary. And I agree with Argen that Matt King deciding not to sell had more to do with his feelings toward the man who cheated with his wife and now stood to gain from the sale, and less to do with the Hollywood speech King gives to his cousin.

I got the impression that the cousins were 'family' but not Family; King's daughters were real family while the cousins were less so. King has another extended 'family' at the beginning of the film; the friends that form his (and his wife's) social circle. But that second family is shown to be false pretty quick when King learns that his best friends have been concealing knowledge of his wife's affair all along. It's King's older daughter who loves him enough to tell him an ugly truth, and that starts the process of King and his daughters becoming (creating?) a real family.

It's interesting that once King learns his wife is going to die, he creates a extended "wake" for both his extended 'families' even as he (re)creates his own. In a way her death is a public event. Or, King is desperate and determined to make her death matter to the world at large. "This person mattered, she was important to you; now mourn her". Even her lover.

I can't decide if that is the ultimate act of love, or the act of a man truly disconnected from his feelings. The former interpretation makes more sense as it would show his older daughter the real character of her father, and give her a reason to respect and admire him.