I went into the theatre expecting more of a biography than a melodramatic piece.
Say what you will, but I felt Hanks' performance of Mr. Rogers was what saved this film from being a utter flop. With that said, Mr. Rogers feels like a secondary character in the plot, which gets increasingly predictable and cliché by the latter part of the film.
The film starts off with a seemingly unexpected plot twist, which honestly grabbed my attention. About halfway through, aside from a few stellar scenes with Hanks, the storyline seemed to diverge farther into an exaggerated and overly predictable "feel good" drama.
The pacing was also too jumpy for me. Just when you thought you'd actually learn something deep about Fred Rogers, the movie cut away to the "real" plot that had more to do with the investigative journalist, than Fred Rogers as a man.
Let me be clear, the pacing was not bad when it got slow. It was so slow at times that it almost made you uncomfortable, but that's because Hanks nailed Mr. Rogers. If you never watched him in the 90s or earlier, I could see how you might be thrown off with just how slow and abnormal his character comes off as. Unfortunately, the slow pacing is offset erratically by the dramatic acting that comes off as borderline forced by the journalist's family.
Overall, the unexpected start to the film grabbed my attention, Hanks performance during the first half kept me interested, but I almost got up and left the theatre in the second half when the plot became uninterestingly predictable and Hanks screen-time lessened.
6/10 because Hanks gave a strong performance, but without him it would have been maybe a 3 or 4 at best.
Say what you will, but I felt Hanks' performance of Mr. Rogers was what saved this film from being a utter flop. With that said, Mr. Rogers feels like a secondary character in the plot, which gets increasingly predictable and cliché by the latter part of the film.
The film starts off with a seemingly unexpected plot twist, which honestly grabbed my attention. About halfway through, aside from a few stellar scenes with Hanks, the storyline seemed to diverge farther into an exaggerated and overly predictable "feel good" drama.
The pacing was also too jumpy for me. Just when you thought you'd actually learn something deep about Fred Rogers, the movie cut away to the "real" plot that had more to do with the investigative journalist, than Fred Rogers as a man.
Let me be clear, the pacing was not bad when it got slow. It was so slow at times that it almost made you uncomfortable, but that's because Hanks nailed Mr. Rogers. If you never watched him in the 90s or earlier, I could see how you might be thrown off with just how slow and abnormal his character comes off as. Unfortunately, the slow pacing is offset erratically by the dramatic acting that comes off as borderline forced by the journalist's family.
Overall, the unexpected start to the film grabbed my attention, Hanks performance during the first half kept me interested, but I almost got up and left the theatre in the second half when the plot became uninterestingly predictable and Hanks screen-time lessened.
6/10 because Hanks gave a strong performance, but without him it would have been maybe a 3 or 4 at best.