A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

→ in
Tools    







A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

This is a heart warming uplifting film, the type of which are rarely made any more. There are strong biographical elements, certainly in its representation of the indomitable Fred Rogers who hosted children's television programs for 40-plus years (chiefly Mister Rogers" Neighborhood) on KQED from Pittsburgh; and also the main protagonist, Lloyd Vogel, written to represent Tom Junod, a jaded magazine writer, who is assigned to do a short piece on Mr. Rogers for Esquire magazine.

Vogel's frustrating and somewhat resentful and discontented life is gradually turned around as he spends more time with Rogers, having originally suspected him as a phony. This is the meat of the story.

I felt an uneasiness as the ending credits rolled, not being able to put my finger on the gnawing shortfall I felt from the obviously good story. Then it dawned on me that Roger's character as written seemed over done. That it was difficult to accept Rogers as an angel appearing out of nowhere who improved the lives of everyone with whom he came into contact.

The reason for the incongruity is that little to no explanation was given to show how Rogers got the way he was, or to indicate where he got his psychological and moral insights. The fact is that in real life Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister who had done graduate studies in child development at the University of Pittsburgh, and had established a 30 year close working relationship with the child psychologist Margaret McFarland. When one understands Roger's bona fides, then his character as portrayed by Hanks becomes much more acceptable and convincing.

Apart from that writing omission, the production was very well put together. Hank's portrayal was slightly too saintly, but still believable (Turns out he is a distant cousin of Fred Rogers'). Matthew Rhys convincingly played the world weary writer, whose film it was to make or break, and he was able to bring it off with a certain smooth dedication, despite his character's somewhat uneven writing.

But it was the veteran Chris Cooper who impressed me as Rhys' father. Cooper has a large character palette, and he used the full gamut of emotion and nuance in this role.

It's interesting that the original Mister Rogers Neighborhood set, camera equipment, puppets, props and miniatures were all used in the film, which lent authenticity to the picture.

Doc's rating: 7/10



I was just about to watch this movie. Thanks for such a wonderful movie review. After viewing, perhaps I will have something to add to your review)





A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019)

This is a heart warming uplifting film, the type of which are rarely made any more. There are strong biographical elements, certainly in its representation of the indomitable Fred Rogers who hosted children's television programs for 40-plus years (chiefly Mister Rogers" Neighborhood) on KQED from Pittsburgh; and also the main protagonist, Lloyd Vogel, written to represent Tom Junod, a jaded magazine writer, who is assigned to do a short piece on Mr. Rogers for Esquire magazine.

Vogel's frustrating and somewhat resentful and discontented life is gradually turned around as he spends more time with Rogers, having originally suspected him as a phony. This is the meat of the story.

I felt an uneasiness as the ending credits rolled, not being able to put my finger on the gnawing shortfall I felt from the obviously good story. Then it dawned on me that Roger's character as written seemed over done. That it was difficult to accept Rogers as an angel appearing out of nowhere who improved the lives of everyone with whom he came into contact.

The reason for the incongruity is that little to no explanation was given to show how Rogers got the way he was, or to indicate where he got his psychological and moral insights. The fact is that in real life Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister who had done graduate studies in child development at the University of Pittsburgh, and had established a 30 year close working relationship with the child psychologist Margaret McFarland. When one understands Roger's bona fides, then his character as portrayed by Hanks becomes much more acceptable and convincing.

Apart from that writing omission, the production was very well put together. Hank's portrayal was slightly too saintly, but still believable (Turns out he is a distant cousin of Fred Rogers'). Matthew Rhys convincingly played the world weary writer, whose film it was to make or break, and he was able to bring it off with a certain smooth dedication, despite his character's somewhat uneven writing.

But it was the veteran Chris Cooper who impressed me as Rhys' father. Cooper has a large character palette, and he used the full gamut of emotion and nuance in this role.

It's interesting that the original Mister Rogers Neighborhood set, camera equipment, puppets, props and miniatures were all used in the film, which lent authenticity to the picture.

Doc's rating: 7/10
Good review...I agree with most of what you've said here. I, too, had issues with the way the character of Fred Rogers was written...I think he comes off more complex in this movie than the man was in real life. Also agree with you about Chris Cooper.



I gave it an 8/10. Good film. Having seen The Irishman and The Two Popes, Hanks would be my preferred candidate for the BSA Oscar so far (haven't seen the new Tarantino film).



...the production was very well put together. Hank's portrayal was slightly too saintly, but still believable (Turns out he is a distant cousin of Fred Rogers'). Matthew Rhys convincingly played the world weary writer, whose film it was to make or break, and he was able to bring it off with a certain smooth dedication, despite his character's somewhat uneven writing.

But it was the veteran Chris Cooper who impressed me as Rhys' father. Cooper has a large character palette, and he used the full gamut of emotion and nuance in this role.

It's interesting that the original Mister Rogers Neighborhood set, camera equipment, puppets, props and miniatures were all used in the film, which lent authenticity to the picture.
Agree with you re Rhys. He had to be perfect in his rôle for the movie to work.

Somewhat disagree re Cooper. For once he was rather OTT in my opinion. Unusual for him.

Not sure about the props & miniatures, but I just read that the puppets were not the originals. Rather, faithful reproductions.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.