This one really brings me back to those special occasions in which I would receive an invitation from my mom and dad to grace them with my presence at dinner. I'd get dressed up, call a taxi, and head off to the spot designated on the invite at the specified time, all the while wondering what special event was being celebrated to rate such an event.
In the middle of dinner, mom or dad would make the announcement- usually it involved deciding to change paper towel providers, or getting the car washed, or some other once-in-a-lifetime moment that could only be marked properly with a sit-down meal at a restaurant. Sometimes the event was tied to the place we were celebrating at- I remember being summoned to the local McDonald's, 6 PM sharp Tuesday Next, to mark the temporary return of the McRib. And the time we were called to dine at Applebee's to toast the $10 coupon dad got for Applebee's. Magic Moments.
So I can definitely relate to this ad; it's a real slice of my own life. I don't get what this kid is saying about "making varsity" or some such, but it's certainly uncouth of him for trying to step on the designated Reason for the Meal- the availability of rubber low-grade beef and microwaved fish-flavored bread crumbs. What's his deal, anyway?
So in what I have to assume is a desperate attempt to get customers to pay good money for grade-B quality garbage, Golden Corral now allows you to fill up a plate and bring it home so that you can continue to punish your digestive system and heart at your convenience later on.
That being said, I have two things to add about the exchange between the mom and kid in this commercial:
1. It's bad enough that you are modeling the idea that eating at this pig trough is a good idea, stupid mom. At least have some level of economic acumen and don't encourage your kid to use the one plate he's got for broccoli. As cheap as those frozen butterfly shrimp and that "steak" is, they are still more valuable than that green weed. Let the kid go for the protein, such as it is.
2. Never in the history of Anything has a kid been this excited at the prospect of eating leftovers. The only way this makes sense is if the kid is expressing relief at having his order be take-out and being spared the experience of actually sitting in one of these "restaurants" (which, I promise, look nothing like the brightly-lit, spacious, clean sets we see in these ads.) As bad as that stuff must take when it's freshly microwaved, I don't want to think about what shoe leather it turns into once it starts to cool down. Hard Pass.
First let me say at the very outset that I did enjoy this film; I thought that the acting, with one or two glaring exceptions, was superb and the story was both important and well-told. The last thing I want to do is throw any shade on attempts to tell tough stories about the reality of the modern economy. Forty years ago, "Roger and Me" really opened my eyes to the reasons and consequences for the collapse of the middle class. "99 Homes" I think attempts to do much the same thing- and, as I said, I did enjoy this film- but also fails on a number of levels.
First- the ethos of the film seems to be that if you are already in a home and you are earnest in your belief that the house belongs to you, missing mortgage payments simply should not matter. If a bank requires a homeowner to live up to his contract, that bank is Evil and Wrong, especially if the homeowner has a wife and kids or is a senior citizen. In short, home ownership is a Sacred Right. I wonder if the writer of this film has the same grace toward renters who don't pay their rent- can we be evicted if we fail to pay? What if we have children? Is the right to renege on a contract exclusive to people who buy property?
Second- Laura Dern's character is just infuriating throughout the whole film. She lives with her son and grandson and "runs a business" (is a hairdresser) out of the home. She worries about money when they are forced to move into a motel but makes no effort to get an actual job that would pay a regular salary, being perfectly comfortable to put the entire burden on her son. Then she rages at her son for taking a job foreclosing homes- a job which will get them out of the motel and back into their home. Then, when he decides to sell the family home to buy a better one, she flies off the handle, insisting that she wants "their" home back and will not live in the new house.
Um, the old family home is not yours, lady. Your son bought it. He can sell it if he wants. What is the matter with you? Why are you acting as if you have a say in this? But it gets worse- she decides to take her GRANDSON away with her rather than live in the beautiful new house. Um, excuse me? How does she have the right to do this? Isn't this kidnapping? THAT IS NOT YOUR SON, LADY. If you "can't" live in the new house, there's the door. But you don't take the boy with you. What planet are you from, anyway?
Third- with one exception, every single person who faces eviction in this film is a victim of their own choices, yet acts as if they are under attack by "The Economy" and "The Rich" and "The Banks." At one point the "bad" guy points out that one couple failed to make their mortgage payments after taking out a stupid loan to add an extension they didn't need. That improvement could just as easily have been a swimming pool or a Disney vacation- it was a decision to borrow money which must now be repaid, but we are told to be angry at the creditors. The one exception is the guy at the end who keeps his house because of a technicality (an unfiled legal form) and not because he actually paid his mortgage. Warms the heart, it does.
I don't know- maybe I'm just getting cold-blooded in my old age, but my empathy meter didn't move much during this film (except for the widowed old guy who got scammed by a reverse mortgage; I felt bad for him.) Maybe it's because I've rented my entire adult life and even during the great housing fire sale of 2008 I didn't take the jump and tie myself down to 30 years of payments I was not sure I could make. Am I really supposed to have sympathy for people who have lived in appreciating assets during the same time but for some reason failed to make their payments? Because I don't. Someone explain to me why I should.
Michael Shannon is not a villain in this film, Andrew Garfield is not a villain in this film, and Laura Dern is not a heroine in this film (she's just a screechy anchor around her son's neck. And a kidnapper.) Ok, I'm done.
"I'm sure you're wondering why you brought you here to Golden Corral."
Yeah, is something wrong? I mean, this place is crap and with the actors being chosen to portray actual customers, and the extras chosen to depict actual customers in the background. and the cleanliness and excellent lighting and the rest, this sure doesn't resemble any Golden Corral I've ever seen.
"It's because the food here is almost frighteningly cheap considering what it claims to be. Do you know how expensive this would be in an actual restaurant with real health and quality standards that DOESN'T cater to people who wear sweatpants almost exclusively and have BMIs that resemble highway speed limits?"
"My script says I'm supposed to say 'no, I'm only six,' because ad execs still think that's the way six year olds talk."
"Well, it would cost a LOT."
"Since I'm a precocious kid in an American television ad, I'll just throw in 'well, you get what you pay for,' and I didn't imagine that this bland, greasy sludge was particularly hard on your wallet, dad."
In both this ad and the upcoming Part II, the parents act as if they've never heard of this Golden Corral place and are just stunned to find that there's a building calling itself a restaurant where a family can stuff itself with all of the reheated fish sticks, chicken and gravy it can hold down for one low price. Again, is something wrong here?
Spoiled rotten blonde suburban princess found out that she could save a few bucks by having Homeaglow do the housekeeping she is probably perfectly capable of doing herself, so she happily FIRED her housekeeper. She didn't "stop looking for housekeepers" or even "let her housekeeper go." She FIRED her. Which would mean Unemployment Benefits and other security except that you just KNOW the housekeeper who got fired was being paid under the table (and was probably dependent on a job which involved scrubbing this hideous woman's toilet) and Blonde Wifey Model #37 caused a severe financial crisis when she decided to respond to a clickbait "Super-Cheap Housekeeping Service" ad on YouTube.
"I've done a good job for you, why are you firing me?"
"Because I found a cheaper option. Say hi to Pepe for me."
"His name's Mario. I don't know how I'm going to tell him we might have to leave the area to find more work, all his friends go to the school he's in now."
"That's sad. I bet you can get a job with Homeaglow. Sure, they won't pay you anywhere near as much as I was, but at least it will be familiar work and Pepe gets to stay in his school."
"Mario. His name's Mario."
"I'd love to chat, but I'm late for my MAGA rally. Hope you and Pepe have an awesome day, and if I don't see you again, good luck in Mexico."
It's 21st century American television, so of course the main character of this trash is a fat, lazy, clueless white man who isn't even bright enough to know how to pretend to look busy at his cushy office job. I have to assume he's someone's nephew, because this guy has earned his PhD at Not Giving One Flying Damn University.
After f--king around for I have to assume All Day (and also have to assume As Usual,) Bored Idiot surrounded by Intelligent, Productive Women Not Related to the CEO finally decides to send a text that is so obviously AI-generated brown-nosing (and focuses primarily on shifting responsibility up the chain of command) that it stuns his boss into silence. Never mind that this only works if the guy who gets the text is less aware than the lump of cells molding it's shape into an office chair more valuable than the employee sitting in it. I mean, I'm a Boomer and I can recognize AI-generated content. If the doofus slob wanted his text to be believable, he would have kept it littered with broken syntax and maybe thrown in a few emojis to replace the thoughts he doesn't have in his head.
This guy is all but announcing over the intercom that he is doing no work, does not know how to do any work, has no interest in doing any work, and responds to requests to do work by attempting to use AI to hand the work off to someone else. I see no intelligence here, but he might be smarter than the people willing to put up with his nonsense and keep him employed in that office. Except, of course, that whole nepotism thing.
