99 Homes is a film that seems to ignore decades of quaint sayings about our belief in “home”: Home is where the heart is. Home is where you make it. Home is wherever I’m with you. Not in 99 Homes. Home is very specific building, adored solely for the reason that it is where the main characters grew up. And if they can’t be there, they will be miserable. Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) and his mother (Laura Dern) face an eviction when their home falls into foreclosure and will now become the interest of high-powered realtor Rick Carver (Michael Shannon).
Carver wears sharp linen suits and a sparkling gold watch, driving his brand new Range Rover from conquest to conquest, leaving scores of now-homeless families in his wake. Nash is the everyman, a hard worker and quick learner with a son to raise and a dream of holding on to his childhood home. After Carver evicts Nash and his mother, Nash makes a Faustian bargain to work with Carver to earn enough money to buy back is house.
This is a film that doesn’t just try to tug at your heartstrings, it wants to bludgeon your chest cavity with a sledgehammer and then run over it with Nash’s Chevy truck. Instead of offering a standard film review here, I decided to see the film with and then interview a successful realtor to lend perspective on the industry’s portrayal in the film. This realtor has closed properties ranging from small condos to multi-million dollar estates, has worked on thousands of bank owned properties, and weathered the highs and lows of the market in an area of the country (Phoenix metro) that was hit to a similar degree as the film’s Orlando. Here is our discussion:
Me: The word “home” is used over and over throughout the film, as opposed to “house,” and was clearly done on purpose by the filmmakers. As a realtor, do you think the definition of “home” has changed over the years?
Realtor: Agents use the word home, but most people use home/house interchangeably. In our market (which is probably similar to Orlando in the film), people are often less attached due to transience. They might say, this is our home “for now.” Also, because of the market boom, many considered their home an investment instead of just a home.
M: The film shows the realtor, Carver, constantly teaming up with a specific sheriff’s deputy. Does this “teamwork” exist? R: No, there is usually a rotation of constables. Typically it never gets to this point (eviction)—most people leave their homes before cops show up. In working with about a thousand foreclosed properties, scenarios from the film maybe happened twice—extremely rare. A lockout may occur, but even then Fannie Mae is quite accommodating for people to get stuff out of the house. Never would they throw your stuff on the curb. Personal property requires a huge process of taking photos and dealing with attorneys and mountains of paperwork; it’s really not worth it to do evictions the way the film shows.
M: Many of the homeowners seem surprised by the eviction notices. Do these ever happen without warning?
R: No. If you’re 60 days late on your mortgage, paperwork for foreclosure is filed by a trustee with the county. The ultimate timeframe depends on the bank, could be 30 days or six months. Thus, people could be living in the house all that time for free. I knew people during the housing bust that lived in their house for two whole years without paying a cent because the process took so long. Residents always know what is coming—it’s never a surprise.
M: The film shows all types of people being affected—rich, poor, old, young. Are certain groups of people more affected or does this happen to all types? R: Depends on the market. So here in Phoenix, yes, all types of people did this. Even “one-percenters” lost their homes. Working class folks were perhaps affected more quickly, but there was not a price range that wasn’t affected. A variety of ages can be affected, depending on a bad loan situation, or if some are scammed by landlords; however, Fannie Mae was actually so nice that they would let you keep renting from them for a while if your landlord foreclosed.
M: Is the Nash character indicative of those caught in foreclosure? R: Yeah, probably. Younger people with families think they’re working hard and trying to move up and do whatever it takes, and there is the feeling that he’s the little man caught in a big, complicated system. There are obviously a lot of people like him.
M: Some of the foreclosed homes in the film are left in horrible condition, with “kill bankers” scrawled on walls and sabotage rendering the homes nearly ruined. Does this happen? R: Absolutely true. I’ve seen countless times, just because the bank wanted the home back, homeowners would purposely clog toilets, pour concrete down drains, punch holes in every wall to steal copper wiring, remove light fixtures and appliances, you name it. Once you do that, you’re now a vandal and a criminal, and you relinquish the victimhood you thought you had.
M: There are several schemes shown in the film, from realtors stealing appliances to get reimbursed by the government, to leasing to employees to take advantage of cash for keys. Do these things happen? R: I don’t know of those scenarios happening. Opportunity certainly exists, but no one can get away with it for too long. Fannie Mae worked with vetted property preservation companies so that people couldn’t take advantage of reimbursements as the film showed. Also Carver would never be allowed to buy Fannie Mae homes and then sell to his own employees, because it would clearly be an opportunity for inaccurate valuation. People trying to pull this off would need to be sneakier than Carver is in the film.
M: Do Carvers exist? R: Sort of. Yes, because he had to be reputable in the first place to even get access to banks’/Fannie Mae accounts and he is putting up his own money (cash for keys, repairs, utilities, etc.) and then having to wait to get paid back. On the other hand, the bad things he does would be caught too quickly for him to be successful. He would lose his license in a heartbeat, as too many eyes (other agents, Fannie Mae, neighbors) would notice his actions. Neighbors always call in when they see weird things going on. He may be able to be unethical in very minor and hidden ways, but his blatant disregard for law and ethics would never last long enough for him to become rich by operating that way.
M: Is Carver as repulsive to you as the film tries to portray? R: His treatment of his employees is repulsive, and though he isn’t particularly mean to homeowners, he could definitely be kinder. But, I understand his hardened heart—he’s heard a million of these stories and he is just doing his job (mostly). He found a way to survive the bust when countless agents gave up their real estate careers. It’s hard work dealing with foreclosures and he is smart enough to adapt to the market. Also, he’s not making six percent commissions, which is way too high (especially when dealing in foreclosures)—realtors never make as much money as people think.
M: Are you a little biased toward Carver because you’re a realtor (laughing)? R: Actually no (laughing)—I don’t give realtors a lot of credit. The majority of realtors don’t give our industry a good name. But those of us who work hard and do a good job still have to do what’s required. Carver is pretty much doing what banks require of him, and if he doesn’t, they’ll hire someone else to do it. That’s the way it is.
M: The film shows realtors/investors forging court documents—could that happen? R: I doubt it. That felt very contrived. Realtors don’t have much to do with the foreclosure process.
M: The film shows Nash having free access to homes' lockboxes as Carver’s employee. Can a non-licensed agent access homes? R: Well, sometimes other appraisers, inspectors, etc. could access a property, but they have to be registered and their activities would be documented. I doubt someone in Nash’s role would have such open access.
M: The film gives Carver a little speech where he blames a variety of people for the housing bust—buyers, banks, government. Who do you think deserves the blame? R: Personally, I believe the person who buys more home than he/she can afford is ultimately to blame. More generally, I think the public believes banks are to blame for convincing people to borrow more money than they could pay back (forgetting that the government incentivized banks to do this). This leads many to think the housing crisis was something “that happened to us” rather than something we did to ourselves. This leads to a lack of learning from mistakes. Until people acknowledge their own part in this, this mess will all happen again in some form at some point.
M: Carver says something to the effect that America bails out winners, not losers. What do you think of that line? Who do you think won or lost from the bank bailouts? R: I don’t agree with what he’s saying, mostly because I don’t know who exactly he’s talking about. Is he saying we only bail out rich people? Because that’s certainly not true. So his statement seems like a forced point on the part of the filmmakers rather than a pertinent economic argument.
M: Is there a way to avoid this chaos in the future? R: No. As long as you want money, and the bank gives you money, and you can’t repay them, their only recourse is the house (collateral). They can’t garnish wages or sue or do anything else to get their money back. By the way, the film shows many homeowners denying cash for keys or only reluctantly taking the cash as a last resort. You would be amazed how many people intentionally stay in their home past the foreclosure date because they want to get cash for keys. You need to stop looking at banks as enormous, faceless entities with endless money and realize that you were given money because the house could be used as collateral. Realize that when you avoid responsibility to Fannie Mae, you are scamming American taxpayers. The bank is trying to invest in you, trusting that you’ll pay them back. Don’t be surprised when they’re upset when you don’t. Also, your home is not an ATM. Nash and his mother should’ve paid off their home many years ago (since it’s been in the family since her childhood), but they made a decision to take out equity. If you think of it as a “home,” you can’t also think of it as a cash machine.
M: I’ve seen some reviews out there that really hit on the “one percent/99 percent” distinction, and see this as a story where some succeed at the expense of others? What do you think of that assessment? R: Aside from Carver’s illegal activities, you can’t fault him for adapting and succeeding in a downturn, and he’s not succeeding because of the misfortune of others. He’s succeeding because he’s following the rules of his employer (Fannie Mae). Another point here is that people from property preservation were able to survive (plumbers, locksmiths, electricians, landscapers, pool repairers, painters)—should we say those working class folks weren’t allowed to benefit from the downturn? It’s easy to get mad at Carver because he’s got a shiny car, but other people were able to be employed too. One more thing, should we be mad that other working class folks were finally able to buy a home after the downturn because the market made homes more affordable? Are we really upset that a hardworking family that was priced out of the market because of the boom, and didn’t get sucked into buying when they shouldn’t, should now be thought of as profiteers because they get to by an affordable home now? It’s not just “one percenters” that figure out ways to improve their lives during difficult economic conditions.
M: Overall, did you like the movie? R: It’s intriguing because it’s pretty realistic from Carver’s point of view. Anyone in the foreclosure/short sale business in the last ten years will know exactly what is going on and completely understand this situation. I assumed Carver would be portrayed as a terrible guy because he’s a realtor during a time of foreclosures. But he’s actually not. He’s a bad guy because he ultimately does illegal things. But the situation he’s operating in doesn’t make him bad. The filmmakers kind of missed the boat if their attempt is to paint him as greedy and ruthless just because he’s a smart realtor. I’m not sure if the general viewer will care much about this movie, though. It’s entertaining for people in the real estate business, but the story isn’t that great as a film. I’d only recommend it for those with a specific interest in the real estate market.
Realtor grade: C
Carver wears sharp linen suits and a sparkling gold watch, driving his brand new Range Rover from conquest to conquest, leaving scores of now-homeless families in his wake. Nash is the everyman, a hard worker and quick learner with a son to raise and a dream of holding on to his childhood home. After Carver evicts Nash and his mother, Nash makes a Faustian bargain to work with Carver to earn enough money to buy back is house.
This is a film that doesn’t just try to tug at your heartstrings, it wants to bludgeon your chest cavity with a sledgehammer and then run over it with Nash’s Chevy truck. Instead of offering a standard film review here, I decided to see the film with and then interview a successful realtor to lend perspective on the industry’s portrayal in the film. This realtor has closed properties ranging from small condos to multi-million dollar estates, has worked on thousands of bank owned properties, and weathered the highs and lows of the market in an area of the country (Phoenix metro) that was hit to a similar degree as the film’s Orlando. Here is our discussion:
Me: The word “home” is used over and over throughout the film, as opposed to “house,” and was clearly done on purpose by the filmmakers. As a realtor, do you think the definition of “home” has changed over the years?
Realtor: Agents use the word home, but most people use home/house interchangeably. In our market (which is probably similar to Orlando in the film), people are often less attached due to transience. They might say, this is our home “for now.” Also, because of the market boom, many considered their home an investment instead of just a home.
M: The film shows the realtor, Carver, constantly teaming up with a specific sheriff’s deputy. Does this “teamwork” exist? R: No, there is usually a rotation of constables. Typically it never gets to this point (eviction)—most people leave their homes before cops show up. In working with about a thousand foreclosed properties, scenarios from the film maybe happened twice—extremely rare. A lockout may occur, but even then Fannie Mae is quite accommodating for people to get stuff out of the house. Never would they throw your stuff on the curb. Personal property requires a huge process of taking photos and dealing with attorneys and mountains of paperwork; it’s really not worth it to do evictions the way the film shows.
M: Many of the homeowners seem surprised by the eviction notices. Do these ever happen without warning?
R: No. If you’re 60 days late on your mortgage, paperwork for foreclosure is filed by a trustee with the county. The ultimate timeframe depends on the bank, could be 30 days or six months. Thus, people could be living in the house all that time for free. I knew people during the housing bust that lived in their house for two whole years without paying a cent because the process took so long. Residents always know what is coming—it’s never a surprise.
M: The film shows all types of people being affected—rich, poor, old, young. Are certain groups of people more affected or does this happen to all types? R: Depends on the market. So here in Phoenix, yes, all types of people did this. Even “one-percenters” lost their homes. Working class folks were perhaps affected more quickly, but there was not a price range that wasn’t affected. A variety of ages can be affected, depending on a bad loan situation, or if some are scammed by landlords; however, Fannie Mae was actually so nice that they would let you keep renting from them for a while if your landlord foreclosed.
M: Is the Nash character indicative of those caught in foreclosure? R: Yeah, probably. Younger people with families think they’re working hard and trying to move up and do whatever it takes, and there is the feeling that he’s the little man caught in a big, complicated system. There are obviously a lot of people like him.
M: Some of the foreclosed homes in the film are left in horrible condition, with “kill bankers” scrawled on walls and sabotage rendering the homes nearly ruined. Does this happen? R: Absolutely true. I’ve seen countless times, just because the bank wanted the home back, homeowners would purposely clog toilets, pour concrete down drains, punch holes in every wall to steal copper wiring, remove light fixtures and appliances, you name it. Once you do that, you’re now a vandal and a criminal, and you relinquish the victimhood you thought you had.
M: There are several schemes shown in the film, from realtors stealing appliances to get reimbursed by the government, to leasing to employees to take advantage of cash for keys. Do these things happen? R: I don’t know of those scenarios happening. Opportunity certainly exists, but no one can get away with it for too long. Fannie Mae worked with vetted property preservation companies so that people couldn’t take advantage of reimbursements as the film showed. Also Carver would never be allowed to buy Fannie Mae homes and then sell to his own employees, because it would clearly be an opportunity for inaccurate valuation. People trying to pull this off would need to be sneakier than Carver is in the film.
M: Do Carvers exist? R: Sort of. Yes, because he had to be reputable in the first place to even get access to banks’/Fannie Mae accounts and he is putting up his own money (cash for keys, repairs, utilities, etc.) and then having to wait to get paid back. On the other hand, the bad things he does would be caught too quickly for him to be successful. He would lose his license in a heartbeat, as too many eyes (other agents, Fannie Mae, neighbors) would notice his actions. Neighbors always call in when they see weird things going on. He may be able to be unethical in very minor and hidden ways, but his blatant disregard for law and ethics would never last long enough for him to become rich by operating that way.
M: Is Carver as repulsive to you as the film tries to portray? R: His treatment of his employees is repulsive, and though he isn’t particularly mean to homeowners, he could definitely be kinder. But, I understand his hardened heart—he’s heard a million of these stories and he is just doing his job (mostly). He found a way to survive the bust when countless agents gave up their real estate careers. It’s hard work dealing with foreclosures and he is smart enough to adapt to the market. Also, he’s not making six percent commissions, which is way too high (especially when dealing in foreclosures)—realtors never make as much money as people think.
M: Are you a little biased toward Carver because you’re a realtor (laughing)? R: Actually no (laughing)—I don’t give realtors a lot of credit. The majority of realtors don’t give our industry a good name. But those of us who work hard and do a good job still have to do what’s required. Carver is pretty much doing what banks require of him, and if he doesn’t, they’ll hire someone else to do it. That’s the way it is.
M: The film shows realtors/investors forging court documents—could that happen? R: I doubt it. That felt very contrived. Realtors don’t have much to do with the foreclosure process.
M: The film shows Nash having free access to homes' lockboxes as Carver’s employee. Can a non-licensed agent access homes? R: Well, sometimes other appraisers, inspectors, etc. could access a property, but they have to be registered and their activities would be documented. I doubt someone in Nash’s role would have such open access.
M: The film gives Carver a little speech where he blames a variety of people for the housing bust—buyers, banks, government. Who do you think deserves the blame? R: Personally, I believe the person who buys more home than he/she can afford is ultimately to blame. More generally, I think the public believes banks are to blame for convincing people to borrow more money than they could pay back (forgetting that the government incentivized banks to do this). This leads many to think the housing crisis was something “that happened to us” rather than something we did to ourselves. This leads to a lack of learning from mistakes. Until people acknowledge their own part in this, this mess will all happen again in some form at some point.
M: Carver says something to the effect that America bails out winners, not losers. What do you think of that line? Who do you think won or lost from the bank bailouts? R: I don’t agree with what he’s saying, mostly because I don’t know who exactly he’s talking about. Is he saying we only bail out rich people? Because that’s certainly not true. So his statement seems like a forced point on the part of the filmmakers rather than a pertinent economic argument.
M: Is there a way to avoid this chaos in the future? R: No. As long as you want money, and the bank gives you money, and you can’t repay them, their only recourse is the house (collateral). They can’t garnish wages or sue or do anything else to get their money back. By the way, the film shows many homeowners denying cash for keys or only reluctantly taking the cash as a last resort. You would be amazed how many people intentionally stay in their home past the foreclosure date because they want to get cash for keys. You need to stop looking at banks as enormous, faceless entities with endless money and realize that you were given money because the house could be used as collateral. Realize that when you avoid responsibility to Fannie Mae, you are scamming American taxpayers. The bank is trying to invest in you, trusting that you’ll pay them back. Don’t be surprised when they’re upset when you don’t. Also, your home is not an ATM. Nash and his mother should’ve paid off their home many years ago (since it’s been in the family since her childhood), but they made a decision to take out equity. If you think of it as a “home,” you can’t also think of it as a cash machine.
M: I’ve seen some reviews out there that really hit on the “one percent/99 percent” distinction, and see this as a story where some succeed at the expense of others? What do you think of that assessment? R: Aside from Carver’s illegal activities, you can’t fault him for adapting and succeeding in a downturn, and he’s not succeeding because of the misfortune of others. He’s succeeding because he’s following the rules of his employer (Fannie Mae). Another point here is that people from property preservation were able to survive (plumbers, locksmiths, electricians, landscapers, pool repairers, painters)—should we say those working class folks weren’t allowed to benefit from the downturn? It’s easy to get mad at Carver because he’s got a shiny car, but other people were able to be employed too. One more thing, should we be mad that other working class folks were finally able to buy a home after the downturn because the market made homes more affordable? Are we really upset that a hardworking family that was priced out of the market because of the boom, and didn’t get sucked into buying when they shouldn’t, should now be thought of as profiteers because they get to by an affordable home now? It’s not just “one percenters” that figure out ways to improve their lives during difficult economic conditions.
M: Overall, did you like the movie? R: It’s intriguing because it’s pretty realistic from Carver’s point of view. Anyone in the foreclosure/short sale business in the last ten years will know exactly what is going on and completely understand this situation. I assumed Carver would be portrayed as a terrible guy because he’s a realtor during a time of foreclosures. But he’s actually not. He’s a bad guy because he ultimately does illegal things. But the situation he’s operating in doesn’t make him bad. The filmmakers kind of missed the boat if their attempt is to paint him as greedy and ruthless just because he’s a smart realtor. I’m not sure if the general viewer will care much about this movie, though. It’s entertaining for people in the real estate business, but the story isn’t that great as a film. I’d only recommend it for those with a specific interest in the real estate market.
Realtor grade: C