I wanted so badly to like this film. (The book that is the source material for this film is my wife's favorite book.) The filmmakers though, very unfortunately and unnecessarily took the source material and made it into an emotionally manipulative cudgel and in some respects, decided ideology trumps art and story.
A few examples:
In the book, it's the government run healthcare system that is trying to force our protagonist's neighbor into a care facility. In "Otto" however, it's a real estate company working with The neighbor's absentee son who are trying to force the neighbor into the care facility. How on earth would a real estate company have anything to do with the long-term healthcare of the neighbor?
Additionally, Otto is notoriously and extremely cynical about EVERYTHING. Yet, when the paper boy somewhat out of the blue tells Otto that he's transgender, Otto is somehow totally accepting and cool with that? Gimme a break. If Otto is who he was portrayed to be up to that point in the film, then Otto-when the paperboy tell him he's transgender-would have been totally dismissive if not disgusted by the paperboy.
It strains credulity to think that this character Otto who we've been conditioned to think is the most crotchety, cynical, traditional, and literally get-off-my-lawn type of old man would hear from a paperboy-to whom Otto's already expressed his displeasure-that the paperboy is transgender and Otto's response would be something like, "Oh, that's cool. That seems totally normal."
Why do you do stuff like this Hollywood?
If you want to inject a certain morality into your films, it's much, much more effective to do it subtly. When Hollywood does it so explicitly, it honestly ruins the films for me. In this case, it's contradicts the story and feels like a aggravating ever-present splinter in the middle of what should be an art piece.
Was this film better than the 1 star I gave it? Yes, but I felt compelled to give it 1 star because I sorta feel like I reached my breaking point with this film.
A few examples:
In the book, it's the government run healthcare system that is trying to force our protagonist's neighbor into a care facility. In "Otto" however, it's a real estate company working with The neighbor's absentee son who are trying to force the neighbor into the care facility. How on earth would a real estate company have anything to do with the long-term healthcare of the neighbor?
Additionally, Otto is notoriously and extremely cynical about EVERYTHING. Yet, when the paper boy somewhat out of the blue tells Otto that he's transgender, Otto is somehow totally accepting and cool with that? Gimme a break. If Otto is who he was portrayed to be up to that point in the film, then Otto-when the paperboy tell him he's transgender-would have been totally dismissive if not disgusted by the paperboy.
It strains credulity to think that this character Otto who we've been conditioned to think is the most crotchety, cynical, traditional, and literally get-off-my-lawn type of old man would hear from a paperboy-to whom Otto's already expressed his displeasure-that the paperboy is transgender and Otto's response would be something like, "Oh, that's cool. That seems totally normal."
Why do you do stuff like this Hollywood?
If you want to inject a certain morality into your films, it's much, much more effective to do it subtly. When Hollywood does it so explicitly, it honestly ruins the films for me. In this case, it's contradicts the story and feels like a aggravating ever-present splinter in the middle of what should be an art piece.
Was this film better than the 1 star I gave it? Yes, but I felt compelled to give it 1 star because I sorta feel like I reached my breaking point with this film.