Yes, I just saw it and felt exactly the same. I thought it was very touching and had great dialogue, but I wouldn't want to watch it again, because it hadn't anything going for it as a film.

@SunParakeet said:

Yes, I just saw it and felt exactly the same. I thought it was very touching and had great dialogue, but I wouldn't want to watch it again, because it hadn't anything going for it as a film.

Yeah I feel the same way, I likely wont watch it ever again.

Ditto. And I hate saying that because we should applaud Washington for sticking with the writer's wishes. Plus, not all films based on plays have to be "opened up."

You know for much of the film I thought that. And as I watched it I recalled so much of the commentary I must have picked up along the way saying dismissively, "It's just a play...it's not really a film." But I think that view is just a curt way of dealing with a complex piece. (BTW, I didn't know it was the writer's wishes until reading these posts.)

The film was definitely dialog-heavy, and can rightly criticized as too much like a play, BUT I think it created extraordinary tension...almost claustrophobia in the film. It's like you couldn't wait to escape the house yourself...growing so sick and weary of Tory's stories, opinions and complaints. Then it happens, Gabe blows the trumpet. And I don't just mean any supernatural stuff here, I mean the film breaks out into the possibilities that there was far more going on the whole time...and far more truth to so many of Troy's laments. That was a superb moment in film, and only possible by the incredible tension and time to get there. This film really exceeded my expectations.

@DanDare said:

I felt that keeping it stage bound ultimately hampered the film even though that is how the writer wanted it and Denzel as director respected it.

yeah pretty much. its way too much like a play.

+1 here. Saw it with my Mom and we both felt it overbearing with excessive dialog, mostly from Denzel and how it felt like a filmed play. Overall solid work but wouldn't care to sit through it again.

@Bobby vs Satan said:

" .... felt it overbearing with excessive dialog .... "

The dalogue was not "excessive" but expressive. The dialogue is August Wilson's gift to the world.

But the "excessiveness" in the dialogue, especially with regards to Troy, was crucial in defining him as a person--he loves to talk and to exagerrate (if you notice Troy's wife has to always bring him back to reality after he tells one of his tales). So the dialog was manna from heaven as far as i'm concerned.

But Washington could have been more creative in how to film or edit the film -- too many close-up reaction shots of actors listening, smiling, and nodding as Troy is talking.

Fences may not be the best piece of cinema but it was beautifully acted and i would see it again (and again) just to hear that dialogue!

agreed. And anyone notice how everyone appeared just to say their lines then left again? eg. Cory outside - Viola comes has little speech, 'go inside do chores', Troy arrives to garden with Viola 'get Cory out here', Cory reappears to do fence, Bono arrives 'Cory go find me that saw', Cory leaves, Bono says lines then leaves, brother arrives... and the whole film is like that. People show up, say some lines, disappear, noone stays, noone exists as real characters, they're all just props for an emotional battering ram.

I found this like so many dramas, a concentrated burst of all of the lows with none of the highs to balance the lives it purports to present. Viola Davis turns a staggeringly strong, powerhouse performance, but beyond an effective and affecting acting class, there's little here to enjoy.

Much more like the old Saturday evening movies, not bad but far from great. I wouldn't watch again.

@shtexas said:

Ditto. And I hate saying that because we should applaud Washington for sticking with the writer's wishes. Plus, not all films based on plays have to be "opened up."

Agreed here.

I don't have a problem with it being performed as a play, although there was surely scope to trim some of the more repetitive elements of the dialogue for a film (should that be desired). I was more concerned that it either wasn't a particularly compelling play or perhaps doesn't speak to me or perhaps hasn't aged so well. One of my parents grew up with an outdoor toilet, so knowledge of financial hardship isn't completely alien to me, so I'm inclined to think it is more a matter of quality.

spoilers

Troy was an unpleasant, uncaring, bullying windbag. He even admits when speaking of retirement that he'll retire early because being a driver means he can't spew his I'll informed guff all day to his colleagues ("it's like working alone").

The suggestion that anyone in his family should be particularly grateful to this murderous imp is a strangely recurring theme in cinema. "Yeah, he killed someone but...". Not satisfied with philandering, wasting money on booze and loose women and driving a son away from his mother, he is shown to repeatedly make decisions that impact negatively on his vulnerable, mentally impaired brother, but that benefits himself [Troy] financially. This includes a decision that results in the brother being sent to a care home rather than being cared for in the house that his money paid for.

Troy was a liar and a cheat. Nothing he says in the entire play should be taken at face value, except when he indicates that he doesn't like his son and that he is entirely comfortable cheating on his wife. Having apparently collected all 7 deadly sins, Troy would not be going to heaven, no matter the intervention of his 'magic negro' brother.

In summary, this play (as presented in this film) tells you nothing about hardship, poverty or its consequences. It merely tells you that low grade humans can cause negative ripples in life, irrespective of their wealth. It is mildly sickening that four of the people he had completed screwed over in life are presented in the final scene as being awed and overcome by his passing. Good riddance!

And finally, it's really bizarre to see a career in the marines seemingly portrayed as something aspirational and positive in the same play as a key character is mentally incapable and institutionalised due to having had "half their brain blown out" in war. That was a seemingly unintentional juxtaposition?

Solid acting performances elevate this to:

6/10

@Fergoose said:

I don't have a problem with it being performed as a play, although there was surely scope to trim some of the more repetitive elements of the dialogue for a film (should that be desired). I was more concerned that it either wasn't a particularly compelling play or perhaps doesn't speak to me or perhaps hasn't aged so well. One of my parents grew up with an outdoor toilet, so knowledge of financial hardship isn't completely alien to me, so I'm inclined to think it is more a matter of quality.

spoilers

Troy was an unpleasant, uncaring, bullying windbag. He even admits when speaking of retirement that he'll retire early because being a driver means he can't spew his I'll informed guff all day to his colleagues ("it's like working alone").

The suggestion that anyone in his family should be particularly grateful to this murderous imp is a strangely recurring theme in cinema. "Yeah, he killed someone but...". Not satisfied with philandering, wasting money on booze and loose women and driving a son away from his mother, he is shown to repeatedly make decisions that impact negatively on his vulnerable, mentally impaired brother, but that benefits himself [Troy] financially. This includes a decision that results in the brother being sent to a care home rather than being cared for in the house that his money paid for.

Troy was a liar and a cheat. Nothing he says in the entire play should be taken at face value, except when he indicates that he doesn't like his son and that he is entirely comfortable cheating on his wife. Having apparently collected all 7 deadly sins, Troy would not be going to heaven, no matter the intervention of his 'magic negro' brother.

In summary, this play (as presented in this film) tells you nothing about hardship, poverty or its consequences. It merely tells you that low grade humans can cause negative ripples in life, irrespective of their wealth. It is mildly sickening that four of the people he had completed screwed over in life are presented in the final scene as being awed and overcome by his passing. Good riddance!

And finally, it's really bizarre to see a career in the marines seemingly portrayed as something aspirational and positive in the same play as a key character is mentally incapable and institutionalised due to having had "half their brain blown out" in war. That was a seemingly unintentional juxtaposition?

Solid acting performances elevate this to:

6/10

I think I gave it a 6/10 myself or something in that range. I saw it and liked it. I'm in no hurry to see it again; the Denzel-directed movie with the most rewatch value for me is The Great Debaters. Debaters is less wordy than Fences is and just feels more dramatically fulfilling. The scene where Denzel and Forest Whitaker have a friendly debate with each other in Debaters is one of my favorite scenery-chewing scenes. Like someone else wrote, a big star of this film is August Wilson's dialogue, which was added to by others. Too much talk without enough action can be off-putting in cinema, though. How should I put it? I went into this film with no expectations and was pleased overall.

I wouldn't be surprised if the wordiness of Fences is just a part of Denzel's directorial vision as far as where his filmography is going... I think he prefers directing over acting, really....