Skip to main content

They brought guns into a care home. They’re the Russian mafia, baby.

I Care a Lot
(2020)

(SPOILERS) And it starts so well too. J Blakeson’s movie sets out its stall as a merciless satire on greed; sociopath Marla Grayson (Rosamund Pike), from a line of sociopaths, makes her money manipulating the legal system to gain guardianship of the elderly, whom she then fleeces. Until she picks the wrong mark, that is: the mother (Dianne Wiest) of a Russian mobster (Peter Dinklage). The scenario’s potential, that of ruthless villain squaring off against ruthless villain, is fertile, and for a while I Care a Lot does indeed move along quite deliriously. And then it runs out of gas.

Marla’s narration begins with a string of cynical maxims – “Trust me, there’s no such thing as good people”; “Playing fair is a joke invented by rich people to keep the rest of us poor”; “There are two types of people in the world. The people who take and those getting took” – and proceeds to practice what she preaches as we witness her success in denying Feldstrom (Macon Blair) all access to his mother before a sympathetic judge (Isiah Whitlock Jr).

It’s a smart play, the devil posing as an angel – “This is what I do. All day, every day. I care” – and one might easily see in Marla a metaphor for the state. And not just in respect of care for the elderly, but rather, the ability to crush any and all opposition to abuse and tyranny. “Yeah, I’d fucking fight” Damian Young’s Sam Rice tells Marla in response to the prospect of being divested of all agency, freedom and wealth: “You say that, but at heart, most of us are weak, compliant and scared” she replies. That would be the world right now in a nutshell (indeed, Rice namechecks the Milgram Experiment, which proved exactly that).

The utter ruthlessness with which Marla views the elderly as commodities, selecting prospects from a range of photos on her office wall and running her business as if its dealing in real estate (which, to a degree, it is), is obviously a none-too-subtle satire of the capitalist motive. As such, Marla Grayson follows in the wake of Gordon Gekko, Patrick Bateman and Jordan Belfort. But while I Care a Lot’s conceptual audaciousness is admirable, it’s a little too accurate to be truly funny. And then there’s that, ice-cold as she is, there’s very little of “love-to-hate” about Marla, which is crucial when it comes to the third act’s developments. She and confederate Fran (Eiza Gonzalez) are so utterly devoid of empathy or basic human decency that their comeuppance is to be richly deserved. And for a while, it looks as if it will be, via a clash of soulless titans.

Dean: I’m happy for you to keep milking these poor, vulnerable people as long as you do. Well played. Hell, if your whole enterprise isn’t the perfect example of the American dream, I don’t know what is.

Dinklage is on good form as Roman Lunyov. Roman has faked his death, and that of his mother Jennifer Peterson (Wiest), in order that he may continue unchecked in the drug trade (we briefly witness his casual attitude towards human life, in reference to losing three mules in the last transit). The manner in which Marla runs rings around smirking Mob lawyer Dean (Chris Messina) is very funny (and Messina’s performance is a hoot). Wiest is outstanding as Jennifer, struggling through the sheer bewildering horror of having her home and freedom snatched away from her, denied basic rights and drugged up to the eyeballs.

Jennifer: He’ll kill you next.
Marla: I don’t lose. I won’t lose. I’m never letting you go. I own you. And I will drain you of your money, your comfort and your self respect. Because your people didn’t play by the rules.

But this is where I Care a Lot goes off the rails. It should, in the end – for it to carry any real bite – arrive at the victim’s catharsis. When Marla threatens the uncooperative Jennifer with “I can make things very bad for you” and the reply comes “Then have at it, you little crock of cunt. Have at it”, that’s the rallying cry to battle. Instead, following a had-it-coming attempted strangulation, Jennifer barely features in the rest of the picture, denied the revenge she deserves and that we, the audience, have been manoeuvred into expecting. Indeed, it’s particularly egregious that Roman and Marla should go into business together, but Jennifer never utters a disconcerted peep.

The much less impactful and de rigueur morality-play justice is served by Chekov’s Feldstrom – if a Feldstrom appears in the first act, he will be used in the last, you can bet on it – with Marla dying in Fran’s arms. There’s also something vaguely distasteful in a virtue-signalling sense in the way Blakeson appears to believe he’s promoting strong women as Fran survives an attempted Mob hit and take revenge. If he was really interested in pursuing such messages, he wouldn’t have put Jennifer in the corner. Instead, he piles absurd development upon absurd development in order to establish how unparalleled Marla is in capability (can you say Mary Sue?) This requires the Russian Mob being so inept as to botch not one but two hits and running the kind of security operation the average 7-Eleven would put to shame.

The other problem is that we’re now stuck with at least half an hour of straight thriller mechanics, which represents a serious loss of confidence for a movie that has hitherto so effectively nailed its blackly comic intentions to the mast. By the time the dust has settled, the chain of care homes partnership between Roman and Marla is a disappointingly pat development, and the justice served rather vanilla.

Blakeson directs entirely serviceably and the performances are all more than solid (with the caveat that Pike needed to appeal beyond the mere hateable, and Wiest outclasses everyone). Alicia Witt shows up as doctor (furnishing Marla with everything she needs on a prospect, “All except the test results. That wouldn’t be ethical”), and Nicholas Logan comes on like a young Crispin Glover as one of Roman’s lieutenants (the farcically botched care home break is perhaps the high point of the movie). I Care a Lot disappoints, but mainly because it promises a lot more than it cares to deliver.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the