The film, which opened Friday, feels like a Franken-movie, because that’s what it is. Part of the 1950s-set story is a “Fargo” knockoff. It was an old Coen brothers script that sat around for decades; now it features Damon and Moore as bumbling criminals. The other section, added by Clooney and frequent collaborator Grant Heslov, follows a black family that is just moving into the same suburban idyll, where the white neighbors respond to the newcomers not with freshly baked bread but with riots.

The two stories work in concert — sort of. Witness the monstrous white families trying to “save” their neighborhood from a perfectly nice black family, while down the street a murderous plot is underway. But so little time and attention are paid to the more racially charged thread that it gets short shrift. The movie ends up being yet another example of how Hollywood’s output marginalizes people of color.

This wasn’t the way things were supposed to go down, right? All the hype; the ubiquitous advertising; Clooney — dreamy as ever — giving charming interviews. And yet, if we look back at history, “Suburbicon” follows a recent trend: Neither the movies Clooney has starred in nor those he’s directed have done particularly well. And yet the tendency when a new Clooney film comes out is still feverish anticipation.

“Should George Clooney and the cast of his upcoming film ‘Suburbicon’ start blocking off their Sundays during award season?” CNN wondered ahead of the movie’s festival premiere. The awards prediction site Gold Derby labeled “Suburbicon” an Oscar contender way back in July.

It may be time to rejigger our expectations.

After all, Clooney’s directing output has always been iffy, with a mix of critical failures, box office bombs and a couple of worthy standouts. “Confessions of a Dangerous Mind,” in 2002, was the first movie he helmed, and it made $33 million worldwide on a $30 million budget. A bigger bomb followed with 2008’s “Leatherheads,” which didn’t come close to recouping its $58 million price tag. “The Monuments Men” and its stacked cast made money, but expectations for an Oscar bid were undone, first when the release was pushed back from late 2013 to early 2014 and then when people actually got to see the movie. It currently has a 30 percent “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Clooney proved his directing talent in 2005, with the small-budget “Good Night, and Good Luck,” which brought in cash, got critics excited and scored six Oscar nominations. That high point partially explains why he continues to get so many chances. The other reason is that he’s Hollywood royalty, which earns him a free pass to keep making so-so movies.

With each one, there’s a distinct disconnect between anticipation and outcome. “The Ides of March,” for example, was a critical and commercial hit. But considering how aggressively it was marketed, its performance still felt like only a minor victory. In its opening weekend, the plodding action movie “Real Steel” easily won the top spot at the box office, and audiences — who are lenient graders — gave “Ides” a B CinemaScore.

Clooney’s movies look great, and they capture the period detail of whatever era’s on-screen, but the stories almost always feel comparatively lightweight.

On the acting side, Clooney’s past few films have been middling at best. “Tomorrowland” was a massive bomb, while “Money Monster” was forgettable, and “Hail, Caesar!” irked audiences enough to give it a C-minus CinemaScore. The Oscar winner still gets plum roles in movies such as “Gravity” and “The Descendants,” but those have been interspersed with “The American” and “The Men Who Stare at Goats.”