So guy gets evicted. I'm ALREADY against the guy because a) he couldn't pay off his mortgage, meaning myself has to pay for this guy via my tax dollars and b) he has a kid, which in his financial means he has ZERO business doing.So he lives with his Mom and kid. Whatever. They get evicted, Andrew Garfield's character ends up working for the guy, who is not so straight as he seems. I personally love this. America was founded on a cut throat mentality. Sure this is illegal and not as straight as 'The Founder' but whatever.So the whole thing ends with him selling his old house (that they got evicted from) and buying a new one with a pool, BBall court, and a giant huge area. His Mom starts freaking out about how she wants the original house and the KID SIDES WITH THE F'ING MOM!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? Look I and many friends got moved out of our house when we were 8. If I got a stupid pool, BBALL court, and GIANT house overlooking a lake I'd tell my grandmother to F off, and my grandmothers (both of them) weren't stupid enough to whine and B about some stupid trivial house that some dead guy built.Whole film started out interesting, but I literally closed the movie the last 10 minutes and felt I'd been raped. What a pathetic film. 6/10 for the start... -2 out of 10 for the ending, giving this a 2. Save your time.

99 Homes follows a man who, after being evicted from his family home, ends up working with the man who evicted him to gain enough money to buy back his house. Whenever I hear people talk about Andrew Garfield's or Michael Shannon's greatest performances they fail to mention this movie, and it makes me wonder if they never saw it. Both leading actors are absolutely fantastic. These are easily some of these guys' best work. The rest of the acting is good, even from the children, but their roles are thankfully minor. The story itself is an interesting one. It's not often that somewhat mainstream movies about eviction get made, especially not ones about the guys who evict people. That was something I loved about this movie: it focuses on and humanizes these guys. Normally we would perceive people in this line of work as horrible people without compassion, but the reality is that it's a job that somebody has to do, whether you like it or not. It's shown to be a hard job that pays very well, and it makes the audience look at people in emotionally trying jobs like this in a different light. On top of that, the movie itself is very emotionally effective. The characters are people who have lost something dear to them, but it shows how the breadwinner of the family takes steps that he normally wouldn't for things he wouldn't do under normal circumstances. It portrays temptation on his part, something that everyone experiences. It becomes a moral battle for the main character, and I found myself flip-flopping between my own moral standing on the subject. When a movie manages to make the audience think and relate to the characters, I think at that point it has succeeded. If I have but one problem with the movie, it's the ending. Not the ending as a whole, but more the last shot. It wasn't great, and I wish there had been a bit more. Still, it was a pretty good place to end it off, so I can't complain too muchOverall 99 Homes is a really solid movie. The characters and acting are great, the story is engaging, and the subject matter makes the audience think about their own beliefs. In the end I would definitely recommend this movie.

The film was as much about corruption as it was about the ordinary and unfortunate. The problem with the movie is that it took people who knew what they were doing (Nash) and people who were tricked (old guy), and tried to pretend that they're all the same and that they're all victims... They weren't. Some people didn't deserve to lose their homes, but some absolutely did. I think it was trying to show 'all sides' - but if you're going to do that, then you don't turn your realtor into a ruthless villain... It's like it wanted to be realistic, but at the same time take things to an extreme to maximise drama. Pick a lane!Shannon and Garfield are both great to watch, so the theatrics still make for great cinema even as they are sometimes ridiculously unbelievable. It's a good enough film as it is, so it's something poignant when it only makes you wonder how much better a REALISTIC film on the same subject would be!

I really wanted to like "99 Homes." I didn't hate it, but it is far from perfect. The skinny: Andrew Garfield is a construction worker who loses his home to foreclosure, unable to find work. He has to move with his young son (Noah Lomax) and mother (Laura Dern) into a hotel on skid row, but through a twist of fate find himself working for the man who evicted him (Michael Shannon). As he gets involved deeper in various real estate scams, his sense of morals has to be balanced against his need to provide for his family.Some of the action and the plot is very contrived -- there's no reason for this big time con man (Shannon) to bring in a protégé and give him so much access and place so much trust in him. At one point, he's given a crucial assignment, to deliver a forged document, that Shannon obviously could have just as easily done himself. You can always identify dodgy writing when the story has to be manipulated in order to put the characters in dramatic situations. Another problem in the film is that while Shannon's bad guy is quite nuanced, Laura Dern is forced to play the same wise grandmother role she plays in lots of Disney movies. After being kicked out of her home, you'd think she might not be quite so high and mighty about the chance to get ahead in life. The writers of the film can see more than one shade of evil, but only one shade of good. And that kinda gets at the heart of what's wrong with the film -- it's a film made in 2014, about events that took place in 2010, and yet the film's vision of America matches what Capra put on celluloid in 1946's holiday film "It's a Wonderful Life." According to the film, America is made up of mostly hard working and honest folk who might steal a little water or power from a bank-owned home next door but who would never -- ever -- EVER -- do anything to hurt anybody else in order to get ahead. Whenever the film tries to play at moral ambiguity, it easily betrays it for sentiment. How did we get here, and how do we get out? The film should either present no answers or it should present a better answer than it does. The ending feels like a definite letdown. It's not really earned. Andrew Garfield continues to show himself as one of the best young actors working, and this really should be sort of a star-making role for Michael Shannon as well. The film is well-directed, but the script is too manufactured.