A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Jake Lipson]

Good trailer. I'm in.

Since the title of the movie has changed to "A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood," rather than the working title of "You Are My Friend," I suggest that the thread title should be updated.

 

[Wayne_j]

A couple of times his Fred Rogers sounded too much like Forrest Gump for my liking. Can't wait for this movie though.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

A couple of times his Fred Rogers sounded too much like Forrest Gump for my liking. Can't wait for this movie though.

Glad to see I wasn't the only one who thought that.

However, like Radioman up there, by the end of the trailer, I accepted Hanks as Mister Rogers.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I never forgot I was watching Tom Hanks -- there was little effort to match the appearance, and no effort to match the voice -- but the remarkable thing in that trailer is how the performance captured Fred Rogers's placidity.

The things that drew people to Mister Rogers were almost the polar opposite of the things that draw people to Tom Hanks. In that trailer, Hanks set aside the things that make him charismatic and found the things that made Fred Rogers compelling.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

International Trailer:


It spends a bit more time at the beginning than the domestic trailer explaining who Mr. Rogers was -- though it will take quite a bit more to explain what he meant to people. But there is a moment in the trailer where I actually choked up, maybe the first time that's ever happened to me for a trailer.

Also, a brief behind-the-scenes look:

 

[Jason_V]

This is unfortunately going to be released the same weekend as Frozen II. Frozen II is my Thursday night movie, but Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood will be a special weekend movie. I won't wait to see it.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Peg and I went to see this this afternoon at a local Regal Cinema. We each brought our mothers with us.

The simple truth is that our two mothers loved it a lot more than we did. My mother was actually crying in Act 3. Peg and I agreed that we both enjoyed Morgan Neville's documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor? more than this.

It's a difficult thing for any actor to try and fill the shoes of someone so recognizable and unique as Fred Rogers--even one as incredibly talented as Tom Hanks.

There were many aspects of the film I enjoyed...such as the use of the miniatures to "travel" between scenes. And the story of Rogers' relationship with the writer, Tom Junod, was quite interesting. And just so many nice Fred Rogers moments. Many of the vignettes involving Rogers which were woven into the story were authentic (if appropriated). But the film was dark and arguably more about Junod then Rogers.

So while there WAS much to like, it somehow left us a bit cold--which surprised us.

 

[Wayne_j]

I saw this in the same city as Mike but in a different theater. I loved it, but I also agree that it wasn't as good as the recent documentary.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Actually, Wayne, I was in East Greenbush this afternoon at 1:50. (Although the film didn't start until 2:20pm!!!! )

BTW there were only about a half-dozen other people in the audience.

 

[Robert Crawford]

My interest in this film is minimal. I think part of it is due to the excellent documentary that came out last year. It's just too soon for another movie about Mister Rogers in my opinion. Another reason is that I never watched the program so I really have no personal connection to the subject matter.

 

[Wayne_j]

I was at the Spectrum. It was about a third full.

 

[MatthewA]

It's hard for a dramatized movie to top a documentary, especially when they had to change the name of the journalist whose story this is also about.

 

[Jake Lipson]

As a disclaimer, this opinion is not yet fully formed because I haven't gotten a chance to see this yet. I saw two movies last weekend (including the very long Irishman, which couldn't be double featured with anything due to its length.) This was just the one that couldn't fit, time-wise. It is on my list and I hope to get to it soon.

However, that being said, I suspect that they made a good choice by not trying to do a birth-to-death biopic of Rodgers. The documentary already took a wide focus of his life and career, and of course it's very recent and lots of people saw it. So it seems like it was important for this to offer a different perspective. I doubt that "topping the documentary" was on the filmmakers' to-list. They obviously knew that the documentary exists but just had to focus on telling their own story.

But the film was dark and arguably more about Junod then Rogers.

This does not surprise me. Everything I've read and been told about the film by others led me to believe that the journalist is the protagonist and that Mr. Rodgers is a supporting character. It's natural for the marketing to lean more heavily on Mr. Rodgers/ Tom Hanks than on Matthew Rhys because both Rodgers and Hanks are more famous figures who will put butts in seats, so that may lead to the impression that it's more focused on Rodgers than it is. But Hanks is being submitted in the Supporting category for the purposes of awards consideration, so the studio is clearly taking the position that it is the journalist's story in that respect.

 

[JoeStemme]

Two questions came to mind when it was announced that Tom Hanks had been cast as Mister Rogers in the wake of the excellent 2018 Morgan Neville documentary WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?: 1. Was the beloved Hanks too perfect, too on the nose a choice to play the part of the beloved kid's TV host? 2. Was a scripted version of Rogers needed so soon? To those questions, it's fair to answer: A definite yes and a much more qualified maybe.


Director Marielle Heller (CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME?) starts well by firmly placing viewer in Mr Rogers' neighborhood. We see Mr. Rogers (Hanks) slowly pull on his iconic sweater and shoes. The miniature Mr. Rogers Neighborhood is lovingly recreated. Ms. Heller respects the original TV aspect ratio of the era (putting her in good graces with this viewer).


Co-writers Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster adapted Tom Junod's magazine article about the journalist's relationship with the television host. Here, the journo has been renamed Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys). He has a wife Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson) and baby. He also is shown to have a bitter relationship with is estranged Dad (Chris Cooper). It's 1998 and the hard-bitten reporter is given what is supposed to be a puff piece by his editor (Christine Lahti). Lloyd snorts at the assignment but is ordered to do it anyway - even if it means uncovering Mr. Rogers' dark-side. Of course, it turns out Fred Rogers is....well, Mr. Rogers. Much is made about how Mr. Rogers likes to take on folks with a chip on their shoulder, so Lloyd makes the perfect foil.


A BEAUTIFUL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? could just as well have been entitled, MR. VOGEL MEETS MR. ROGERS. It's really Vogel's story. When filmmakers create stories about famous people told through the eyes of a common person (think JULIE & JULIA, ME AND ORSON WELLES, MY WEEK WITH MARILYN etc) the key is to create characters interesting enough so that the audience doesn't just say: Hey, let's have more screen-time with the famous person we came to watch! It also helps if said commoner is interesting or sympathetic enough for us to care about them. This is where NEIGHBORHOOD gets problematic. Lloyd Vogel may be based on Tom Junod, and the very basic outline is correct, but the details are mostly screenwriter hooey. There was no dysfunctional father relationship. Junod wasn't so 'broken' that he needed 'fixing'. It's a sop to easy mawkish sentimentality. It's also fundamentally dishonest and evasive -- precisely, the opposite attributes which makes Fred Rogers such a heroic figure to this day. Changing the name is no excuse.

Still, NEIGHBORHOOD works to an extent. Hanks is one of the most endearing actors of his era, and that charm and seeming lack of guile simply works as Rogers. Hanks isn't just a mimicking the well known ticks and mannerisms, but, imbuing the essence of the man. He fills the screen with joy whenever he is on screen. While the screenplay has serious issues with credibility, the writers and Director Heller frame the story well. The Mister Rogers Neighborhood miniature set is used to illustrate the transitions between sequences. And, there's a funhouse mirror aspect reminiscent of several Twilight Zone episodes (particularly “A World of Difference”) where Vogel becomes part of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood itself. Parts of it come off as creepy - but, hey, we know Mr. Rogers will make it all right in the end. Hanks and Heller create a nice atmosphere and pay tribute to Fred Rogers, the man. Too bad the writers felt that they had to impose a trite metaphor as a short-cut to telling a genuinely honest tale, befitting of the man himself.

 

[Jason_V]

The simple truth is that our two mothers loved it a lot more than we did. My mother was actually crying in Act 3. Peg and I agreed that we both enjoyed Morgan Neville's documentary Won't You Be My Neighbor? more than this.

I was one of the people crying in the theater. It started in the subway scene and continued to the end. Why? Even though this isn't a documentary, the idea that one person can affect as many radically different people as he did through the television with a calm, loving demeanor and simple talk speaks to me as a human being.

Granted, Won't You Be My Neighbor? is a better film, but I don't think that's a fair comparison because the movies are not trying to tell the same story. They can both exist side by side: one as an archival document of how Fred Rogers touched the world and the other taking pieces of true life to create a story to remind all of us of the power of good, honest, decent people in the world.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Well, I'm late to this party due to the sheer number of new films that have been coming out lately, but finally had a chance to see this today.

I really liked it.

The decision to make Lloyd the protagonist and not Mr. Rogers was a welcome one. Instead of showing us Rodgers' life, which probably would have been a lot to chew on for a narrative film, this choice allowed us to see how Rodgers impacted Vogel's life as a microcosm for how Rogers impacted many lives. Hanks was great, but I was just as invested when he wasn't on screen and we were just with Rhys as when Hanks was there. Marielle Heller has a gift for directing deeply human character pieces, and this certainly played into her strengths. Although it's pretty much a two-header between Rhys and Hanks, the supporting cast was very good as well.

The only thing that didn't quite work for me was

Spoiler

the wraparound episode of the show where Mr. Rodgers talks to the audience about Lloyd. Since Lloyd, not Rogers, is clearly our protagonist, I think it would have been more natural to start the movie focusing squarely on him and then having the audience first encounter Rogers when he does, rather than opening with Rogers out of the gate. That felt a little unnecessary to me.

But it was still a wonderful movie and easily better than either of the two newer releases I also saw this week.

 

[Tino]

Well, I'm late to this party due to the sheer number of new films that have been coming out lately, but finally had a chance to see this today.

I really liked it.

The decision to make Lloyd the protagonist and not Mr. Rogers was a welcome one. Instead of showing us Rodgers' life, which probably would have been a lot to chew on for a narrative film, this choice allowed us to see how Rodgers impacted Vogel's life as a microcosm for how Rogers impacted many lives. Hanks was great, but I was just as invested when he wasn't on screen and we were just with Rhys as when Hanks was there. Marielle Heller has a gift for directing deeply human character pieces, and this certainly played into her strengths. Although it's pretty much a two-header between Rhys and Hanks, the supporting cast was very good as well.

The only thing that didn't quite work for me was

Spoiler

the wraparound episode of the show where Mr. Rodgers talks to the audience about Lloyd. Since Lloyd, not Rogers, is clearly our protagonist, I think it would have been more natural to start the movie focusing squarely on him and then having the audience first encounter Rogers when he does, rather than opening with Rogers out of the gate. That felt a little unnecessary to me.

But it was still a wonderful movie and easily better than either of the two newer releases I also saw this week.

C’mon. Better than CATS?

 

[Robert Crawford]

I had zero interest in seeing this movie. Perhaps because I was never a fan of the show. I'm sure I'll try to watch it once it's released on home video.