i was simply intrigued to it because of the similarity and resemblance to Fargo. It could be described as Fargo 2. Even though Daemon is a good actor, this role fitted more on an actor who could naturally be a clumsy and stuttering weasel. But yeah, even though it wasnt a masterpiece, the resemblance to Fargo kept my interest.

That's interesting because I've seen Fargo many times and I never got that impression. I guess the scam to kill a spouse and having the scheme fall apart is pretty similar, but otherwise I don't see much of a similarity. It seemed overwhelmingly to have a white-people-are-all-awful subtext which I found obvious and annoying.

the story is kinda based on a true story where a white father poisoned the halloween candy of his children and thus killed them in order to compensate from the insurance. it really could have been left at that, on how desperate HUMANS can get. but i see how you feel the racial subtext wasnt needed, even though it didnt really bother me as i understand they were trying to make a point. an unnecessary one though.

Knowing that Clooney is a social justice warrior leads me to believe that there was a deliberate intention to make that commentary on suburban white people in American and I found it disgusting. The white neighbors were essentially KKK without the robes and hoods. The other oddity in the film is we don't see the black father until almost an hour into the story. Up to that point, I assumed the boy only had a mother. Not sure why they did that.

keep in mind that the movie also portrayed how not all whites were racist, as you see the boy playing with the neighbor at the end of the movie. like nothing happened lol

Oh, ok, the innocent was the only non "racist" in the story. I guess that makes it all alright as if that wasn't a strong statement that "racism" is taught which isn't entirely true.

@Don Jon said:

the story is kinda based on a true story where a white father poisoned the halloween candy of his children and thus killed them in order to compensate from the insurance. it really could have been left at that, on how desperate HUMANS can get. but i see how you feel the racial subtext wasn't needed,

This movie is fully based on a true story about a black family that was terrorized by white supremacists for moving into Levittown, PA - as such, racism is not "a subtext", it is a focal point of the movie.

And yes, there is a difference between being white and being a white supremacist, which was indeed depicted in the movie. This movie was not demonizing "white people", it was showing the ugliness of white supremacy, and acknowledging that ugliness does not require defending being white, because they are not (or, at least, should not be) the same.

Of course, for those who, even subconsciously, believe that their dignity as a white person is dependent upon the enforcing of white supremacy, attacking one is attacking the other...which is sad, but at least it explains why they get so defensive when white supremacy is called out.

even though it didnt really bother me as i understand they were trying to make a point. an unnecessary one though.

As long as people don't get it or, worse, don't want to get it, the point will remain necessary. There is no mystery about what the movie was about, the stakeholders have talked about it in interviews. Denying reality is odd.