What They Had Feature Scores
Explore all 37 feature scores for What They Had, organized into pros and cons.
Scores by Feature
Summary
37 reviewed features-
Very positive 4.5-5.012 (32%)
-
Positive 3.5-4.417 (46%)
-
Neutral 2.5-3.44 (11%)
-
Negative 1.5-2.44 (11%)
Pros
Sort
-
Forster, Shannon and Danner supply many of the strongest moments, combining stubbornness, vulnerability and tenderness. The supporting ensemble often outshines the familiar plotting.
-
The ensemble is the most reliable strength, turning strained family arguments into vivid, often moving scenes. Even skeptical takes credit the actors with lifting conventional material.
-
An unusually strong cast makes familiar dementia and family-conflict territory watchable. Swank, Shannon, Forster and Danner repeatedly earn praise as a group.
-
Caregiving disputes, sibling resentment and moments of recognition often feel painfully true to life. Some question the family’s credibility or the softened picture of dementia.
-
Swank and Shannon’s sibling shorthand and Forster and Danner’s long-married intimacy frequently feel lived in. A minority find the family less convincing as a whole.
-
The caregiving strain, fleeting recognition and fear of separation bring many viewers to tears. Some find the emotion too heavily engineered or the overall film unexpectedly distant.
-
The film is strongest when old resentments and genuine affection collide over caregiving decisions. That intimacy can falter when peripheral conflicts or tidy resolutions crowd the central family.
-
Gallows humor and prickly family banter provide relief without usually trivializing dementia. Laughter can feel uncomfortable, but often captures how families cope.
-
Chomko is often praised for a sensitive touch and control of a difficult emotional subject. Reservations center on theatrical staging, uneven visual choices and familiar dramatic turns.
-
The shifts between confusion and clarity often feel authentic, while the family’s humor is treated as a coping mechanism. A dissenting view finds the illness softened into an overly cute screen version.
-
Swank’s conflicted daughter is widely praised for making indecision and regret legible. Some find the characterization tiresome or her performance less distinctive than the supporting work.
-
The balance of grief and humor often keeps the drama humane and avoids mawkishness. More critical reactions find an uneasy slide toward heavy sentimentality.
-
The family crisis can be intimate, funny and deeply affecting, particularly when caregiving takes center stage. Conventional plotting and sentimental resolutions divide reactions.
-
The photography earns praise for polished framing, painterly images and wintry Chicago atmosphere. Its restraint keeps attention on the actors.
-
A difficult subject stays watchable through the cast’s warmth and grounded humor. Enjoyment is strongest for viewers comfortable with intimate, argumentative family drama.
-
Letting go, caring for one another and acting on hard-earned lessons give the film a compassionate takeaway. One critical response finds few useful insights or believable answers beneath its sincerity.
-
The father-son conflict has particular bite, exposing the damage that devotion and rigid authority can coexist with. Forster’s formidable patriarch makes that tension compelling.
-
Sharp exchanges and sardonic sibling shorthand give the arguments bite. Less favorable reactions hear generic, soapy lines that blunt the performances.
-
The central family often feels layered, with resentment, duty and fear beneath its arguments. Smaller roles and hurried resolutions leave some relationships underdeveloped.
-
Many find the story absorbing even through repeated family arguments, with welcome breathing room. Others object to meandering subplots or an overextended ending.
-
The writing can be observant, witty and emotionally precise about family obligation. Critics also flag banal dialogue, distracting side stories and overly convenient resolutions.
-
The older couple’s enduring attachment supplies some of the most gently moving moments. Bridget’s flirtation divides opinion and can distract from the central caregiving crisis.
-
Caregivers and viewers with experience of aging parents are especially likely to recognize the dilemmas. Its family-centered sadness and humor can also connect across generations.
-
The restrained presentation can feel handsome and intimate, with evocative winter imagery. Some visual decisions fall flat, and the home-bound arguments can seem more theatrical than cinematic.
-
The family apartment feels comfortably inhabited, and the understated design is polished. Familiar domestic spaces strengthen the sense of accumulated family history.
-
For viewers seeking an emotional family drama, the blend of sadness, tenderness and comedy is especially satisfying.
-
Chicago feels specific and inhabited rather than generic, with local atmosphere helping ground the family’s troubles.
-
The third-act tragedy is handled without descending into mawkishness, preserving the film’s blunt, restrained approach.
-
The film’s length feels well judged in the account that discusses runtime, avoiding the drag often associated with character dramas.
Cons
Sort
-
The dysfunctional-family setup and familiar narrative beats invite repeated complaints about cliché. Strong acting helps, but does not make the plotting surprising.
-
The family backstory and staged youthful memories draw complaints about inconsistent chronology. The Korean War connection and implied period do not convincingly fit the characters’ ages.
-
The ending is the clearest fault line: restrained reconciliation moves some viewers, while others object to tidy closure, drawn-out farewells and blunt symbolism.
-
Skipping the process behind the final reconciliations makes the third act feel discordant. Brief glimpses of settled outcomes weaken the earlier patient observation.
-
Noticeable sound-mix problems distract from an otherwise emotionally involving ensemble drama.
-
The musical score receives a modest assessment rather than standing out beside the performances and photography.
-
The film explores commitment, family roles and the burden of dementia care. Its breadth can enrich the portrait, but can also dilute the central issue or leave hard questions unanswered.
-
The caregiving dispute creates a compelling center, but the surrounding marital and college subplots divide viewers. Some welcome the broader family portrait; others feel it crowds out dementia or resolves too easily.
Cast & Creators
-
NobertForster is a frequent standout as a devoted but immovable husband and father, revealing fear beneath belligerence. The role’s theatricality and occasional caricature draw reservations from a few viewers.
-
Ruth EverhardtDanner brings warmth, lyricism and heartbreaking shifts of recognition to Ruth. Praise for her restraint is tempered by concerns that the role is peripheral or the illness too adorably softened.
-
Nicky EverhardtShannon’s prickly humor and exposed resentment repeatedly stand out, with several assessments calling the work among his best. One dissenting take finds angry mannerisms obscure his charisma.
-
Bridget ErtzSwank makes her daughter’s divided loyalties and private unhappiness tangible, often through restrained expression. Some find her earnestness tiring or her flirtatious scenes less convincing.
-
Writer, DirectorChomko’s debut earns substantial praise for sensitive observation, grounded humor and emotional precision. Others find the staging theatrical and the writing conventional, with distracting subplots and overly tidy closure.
-
CinematographerSchaefer’s photography is praised as classy, polished and unobtrusive, supporting the focus on psychology and storytelling.
-
EmmaFarmiga’s anger and hurt can sharpen the younger generation’s part in the family conflict. Other assessments find her contribution limited or less memorable than the senior ensemble.
-
ActorSmillie’s brief encounter turns effectively from eager affection to hurt recognition when the attention proves self-serving.