WHY WHY WHY ?!?



This movie had a mountain of potential, so I'm just wondering WHY the moronic writers/directors/editors in Hollywood often botch othwerwise great movies!!!

Here's the short list of items, which if done differently, could have elevated this movie to greatness- instead of relegating it to my "For Sale" box of DVDs.

1) They never explained WHO the black guy was & from WHERE he came!!!

2) HOW did a Lottery ticket translate to the dream/fantasy that ensued?!?

3) Hollywood perpetuates racism! E.g.,from the grocery store scene: "the Lotto be keepin` the brothers down." & "stupid ass white boy in a $2000 suit".

4) WHY does Hollywood often insert the disgusting details of life? E.g., showing the feces in the baby's diaper! I've had two kids so it's not that I can't take it, but do the idiots in Hollywood actually think people like seeing that sort of thing? That visual just made my popcorn taste sooo much better!!!

5) Finally, just as important as the plot hole regarding WHO the black guy was & HOW that ticket was able to work its magic... the ending sucked!!! I'm not even a Hollywood writer/editor, but I can readily think of a few alternative endings that FAR surpass the boorish ending they provided!

reply

To me part of the 'magic' of the movie is that Don Cheadle is an angel of some sort, so his origin not explained was fabulous.

And it was not the lottery ticket that translated to the dream/fantasy, it was Jack's actions in trying to do the right thing at the grocery store what made the fantasy come true.

I loved the ending, the last shot of them sharing a cup of coffee to me seems almost poetic.

I love this movie, I'm watching it right now, to me it's an immense enjoyment to watch it by this time of the year.

Family Man (even with some flaws) = 9/10.



reply

Well, it was quite apparant that the movie alluded to Cheadle being an angel, but then again, WHAT KIND of angel uses profanity, is bigoted ("Whiteboy this & brother this) & puts a gun to someone's head?!?

reply

Well, it was quite apparent that the movie alluded to Cheadle being an angel, but then again, WHAT KIND of angel uses profanity, is bigoted ("Whiteboy this & brother this) & puts a gun to someone's head?!?


Angel is a stretch. "Arbiter of perspective" would be a better term. It appears that he assumes the identity of people he is giving a "glimpse". He is simply fulfilling his role as those people.

reply

A black angel?

reply

Cash is not really a Christmas angel IMO. He seems more of an agitator. He incites change and then tells Jack that he, Jack is responsible for bad choice.

reply

[deleted]

To be honest, I have a slightly different view. I really enjoyed watching this film - its a light hearted, easy to watch film that they don't make enough of these days.

Anyway, my view:

1) I think this is part of the appeal. The nature of Don Cheadle's role is left to the imagination and interpretation of the viewer, which for me, worked well.

2) I think this was a test. The initial test was for the store owner. Don played a stereotypical character of a 'black gangster' (sorry, the wording could probably be better)and the owner immediately formed a view and refused to even look at the ticket. Hence Don's words as he leaves the store 'you blew it, the ticket was real'. I think if he'd overcome his prejudices, maybe he'd have had the opportunity to experience a different life. Jack interfered in a very difficult situation, showing courage, integrity and selflessness. That's why he was given the chance. Finally, when Jack goes back to the store at the end, Don is testing another girl, giving her too much change. She doesn't speak up. I think he tests people, looking for a bit of character in someone who deserves the sort of glimpse that Jack got.

3) I disagree - i think the stereotypical black man thing was essential for that scene (as i described above)

4) I also thought this was important. It was important to highlight the extreme opposites of Jack's lives and demonstrate how uncomfortable Jack initially found the whole family thing.

5) A bit flat maybe, but not a poor ending.

reply


Overall, I enjoyed the movie, too... HOWEVER, it could have been sooo much better if they hadn't left 'certain' things up to the imagination because if 'certain' facts/explainations are ommitted from a movie- THEY'RE CALLED PLOT-HOLES!

In reply to your view, numerically:

1) Don Cheadle can't be an angel, because he was an obscene bigot!
2) I agree that the acceptance of the Lotto ticket (& again @ the end with the girl not giving the excess change back to the clerk) was a test & because they both failed, they didn't get to have that glimpse. My point was simply that the moronic editors could/should have treated the seemingly divine 'opportunity' with more class/care/dignity.
3) Again, Don Cheadle was a big-mouthed bigot & the racial slurs weren't necessary... @ all. Hollywood loves reeling with the whole white man this & brotha that. Will they ever cease to perpetuate bigotry/racism? Not if viewers (not unlike yourself) continue to endorse it...
4) I totally agree about having to contrast the differences between Jack's lives, but did they have to actually show it?!? Or does your imagination only work for certain scenes???
5) Flat=poor... when they could have done it with passion & pizazzzzzzzzz

reply

[deleted]

I will try an answer this based on how viewed the movie.

Of course they never explained where the black guy came from but it was clear he had some juice and made reference to how the they were proud of Jack stepping in. Was he an angel? I think so and that comes with the power of going back in time and changing the world for one man. It is funny how one decision can change so much.

The Lottery ticket wasn’t for Jack. It was for the clerk. Some other deal was going on regarding him and Jack stepped in and diverted the situation to a peaceful conclusion. Again, later on when he picked jack up in his car he said they were really proud of him which was why they were doing this for him.

As for how the black guy talked in the store he was just speaking in the way the clerk expected him to for the reaction. I felt it was real and believable as I work in an environment where I see this all day, i.e prison.

I also didn’t really like the diaper scene but as a father – whatever. I think it was just there to say Jack was really out of his comfort zone.

As far as the ending goes I liked it. Jack came back to his old life and realized how important Kate was to him and he needed her back in his life and he was willing to risk everything to attain that. Did it work out? I think it did but the film maker left it to what you want to believe. I really do enjoy this movie and while not perfect it is very good.

reply

I agree with the two above. I wouldn't call them plot holes. It's how you interpret and understand it. I also want to add that I really don't like baby poo but I found that scene hilarious and so did my whole family.

"I love you as I know you. Because I know you. As you are. Good and bad. Better and worse."

reply

1. The black guy whose name is Cash is an angel. I always thought that was a given.

2. The lottery ticket had nothing to do with the glimpse that Jack experienced it was the fact when Cash asked Jack "what did he need" and Jack replied he didn't need anything...this is what triggered the Glimpse. Cash had to show him that everyone needs something...even rich people who think they have it all....

3. There was no racism....I hate just because a movie portrays a character a certain way whether it be negative or whatever they are doing something wrong. It's a movie.......characters are made up to be all kinds of different personalities and unless you live in a cave there are people out there that act and talk like Cash's character....so how is that racism??

4. who cares about the baby poop....I've seen worse on TV....

5. I didn't particularly like the ending either because in reality it could never turn out to be anything like his glimpse unless they went back to 1987 and Jack had a second chance to change his mind knowing what life could be like with Kate...

reply

[deleted]

Listen up, miscreant; you're clearly moronic considering your claim that "white people can't face racism." Hollywood DOES perpetuate/thrive/profit from racism & if your to blind/dumb to see it then fvck YOU, too :-)

reply

How does it feel to have such a hateful heart? I noticed all your posts on IMDB board are about racism against white people. And you don't seem to mind racism against black people in The Family Man?

If you're a racist person, no matter what is being said anywhere anytime, you'll still see it as racism. Whatever movies you see, you'll still find racism in them because it's already engraved in your brain. So it's really pointless talking to you really. *Shake my head*

reply

FTR, "All" of my posts are not about racism against white people. Just think for minute: If the line in this movie had said "stupid ass black boy in a $2,000 suit" everybody would be screaming bloody murder. Get a clue, ignorant idiot...

reply

And I am "ignorant" because.......?

Racism is NOT okay no matter what race the target is. It seems to me that you're bitter/annoyed/whatever just because black people always "scream" about racism against them every now and again. And so, you feel the need to do the SAME. That doesn't make you any less annoying!

But whatever, I figure it's not worth talking to you anymore. Goodbye.

reply

can you give an example of black people ''screaming racism''?





i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners

reply

whites cannot face racism, and people like you are clearly begging to have the right to scream about being oppressed while reaping the benefits of white supremacy. you're bitching about a line in a movie, while black people actually face racism on a day to day basis. black people getting denied jobs because they're names sound black, and being killed off by cops almost everyday. but no let's stop and cry for all the poor white souls over a fvcking movie line. ''someone called me white boy, this is how slaves must of felt wahhh ''






i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners

reply

Ignorant miscreants like you belong @ the ACLU, SPLC & NAACP. Jew Commie...

reply

no one cares about your white tears






i've got feelings too, ya know - inbetweeners

reply

No tears here, loser...

reply

I know it's been 6 years since you're post but I hope you've eased up on the exclamation marks.

reply

No such luck for your hope!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

They never explained WHO the black guy was & from WHERE he came!!!


- it's a Christmas movie, so it is presumably an angel from God, or possibly God himself. not necessary to know, arguable at best that an explanation is necessary. a vagueness makes it more interesting and keeps us thinking and wondering.


HOW did a Lottery ticket translate to the dream/fantasy that ensued?!?


- it didn't, it was a test for the Asian store-owners who (ironically) misjudged the stereotypical black hoodlum and wouldn't honor the ticket. it was also a test for Jack, who responded correctly, risking his own life for people he doesn't know in a sloppy convenience store he wouldn't normally ever go into.


Hollywood perpetuates racism! E.g.,from the grocery store scene: "the Lotto be keepin` the brothers down." & "stupid ass white boy in a $2000 suit".


- except that Don Cheadle is playing a role that does reflect the reality out there, even now, there are black hoodlums exactly like the character he played. one thing to consider is that a rich white guy (or anybody, but especially a snobby, arrogant, rich white guy) in real life would probably not take that sort of chance with his own life, so it does bring the point home more powerfully and effectively by using a black stereotype. can't think of a better way to sell that idea, so i'd say go with the racism to most powerfully create a believable, if unlikely, scenario to tell a moral tale.

ironically, it actually speaks against racism by stereotyping the character, because the Asian shopkeepers do misjudge him and the lotto ticket, while Cage's character has a momentary lapse of selflessness, enough to earn him an opportunity not only to see how things could have been better for himself, but to give him a second chance to get that family life he didn't realize that he hungered for.


WHY does Hollywood often insert the disgusting details of life? E.g., showing the feces in the baby's diaper!


- the idea was to bring realism to the scene and solidify the idea that he would not want this sort of life contrasted to his luxurious, wealthy reality wherein he can bask in the glow of greater orderliness, cleanliness, servitude and utter wealth. to trade living in the lap of luxury to the realities of poop, pee, animals, noisy kids, a much lower paying job, "sub-par wardrobe" and all the rest must be contrasted sharply to get the idea across effectively. obviously it worked on you and me, since we believed it to be gross. realism, suspense of disbelief, is the reason filmmakers use these methods.

later, when back in his luxurious world, he recognizes that the love of a family, despite all its messy, disorganized, confused and complicated elements, is a far greater thing than wealth alone without that glorious, deep, and heartfelt love of wife and children.

the beauty of it is that he would trade the clean, organized life of wealth for the poop, pee, snotty noses, yelling kids... because their love is a far stronger force than those little, inevitable irritations, and trumps any amount of wealth and its trappings.


Finally, just as important as the plot hole regarding WHO the black guy was & HOW that ticket was able to work its magic... the ending sucked!!!


- 1. doesn't really matter WHO the black guy is, only that he exists and brings tests to individuals. if worthy, they get an opportunity to see how they can change their life for the better.

2. it DID show "HOW that ticket was able to work its magic" by revealing the racism of the Asian shop-owners and the willingness of Cage's character to risk his own life for others, simultaneously trying to help the gangster in the process. this is certainly why he is given not only a glimpse, but also a second chance to rekindle their romance, relationship and have a family.

3. i understand why some would feel that the ending was anticlimactic, but it is important to consider that he is only given a chance to change, there is still a lot of work to be done to realize the beautiful family that he was shown. it is meant to leave us feeling melancholy, wishing for the Protagonist to have the best life with his girl, and he indeed does have hope, but it's left up to him and her to forge a new relationship that will create that reality.

arguably the best ending is what we're given, if unsatisfying in some ways, we are left with hope...



"If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!"

reply