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.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe he had one too many peanut butter and fried banana sandwiches.

3000 Miles to Graceland (2001) (SPOILERS) The kind of movie that makes your average Tarantino knockoff look classy, 3000 Miles to Graceland is both aggressively unpleasant and acutely absent any virtues, either as a script or a stylistic exercise. The most baffling thing about it is how it attracted Kevin Costner and Kurt Russell, particularly since both ought to have been extra choosy at this point, having toplined expensive bombs in the previous half decade that made them significantly less bankable names. And if you’re wondering how this managed to cost the $62m reported on Wiki, it didn’t; Franchise Pictures, one of the backers, was in the business of fraudulently inflating budgets .

White nights getting to you?

Insomnia (2002) (SPOILERS) I’ve never been mad keen on Insomnia . It’s well made, well-acted, the screenplay is solid and it fits in neatly with Christopher Nolan’s abiding thematic interests, but it’s… There’s something entirely adequateabout it. It isn’t pushing any kind of envelope. It’s happy to be the genre-bound crime study it is and nothing more, something emphasised by Pacino’s umpteenth turn as an under-pressure cop.

You absolute horror of a human being.

As Good as it Gets (1997) (SPOILERS) James L Brooks’ third Best Picture Oscar nomination goes to reconfirm every jaundiced notion you had of the writer-director-producer’s capacity for the facile and highly consumable, low-cal, fast-food melodramatic fix with added romcom lustre. Of course, As Good as it Gets was a monster hit, parading as it does Jack in a crackerjack, attention-grabbing part. But it’s a mechanical, suffocatingly artificial affair, ponderously paced (a frankly absurd 139 minutes) and infused with glib affirmations and affections. Naturally, the Academy lapped that shit up, because it reflects their own lack of depth and perception (no further comment is needed than Titanic winning the big prize for that year).

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984) If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights  may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box ’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisi

I must remind you that the scanning experience is usually a painful one.

Scanners (1981) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg has made a career – albeit, he may have “matured” a little over the past few decades, so it is now somewhat less foregrounded – from sticking up for the less edifying notions of evolution and modern scientific thought. The idea that regress is, in fact, a form of progress, and unpropitious developments are less dead ends than a means to a state or states as yet unappreciated. He began this path with some squeam-worthy body horrors, before genre hopping to more explicit science fiction with Scanners , and with it, greater critical acclaim and a wider audience. And it remains a good movie, even as it suffers from an unprepossessing lead and rather fumbles the last furlong, cutting to the chase when a more measured, considered approach would have paid dividends.

You seem particularly triggered right now. Can you tell me what happened?

Trailers The Matrix Resurrections   The Matrix A woke n ? If nothing else, the arrival of The Matrix Resurrections trailer has yielded much retrospective back and forth on the extent to which the original trilogy shat the bed. That probably isn’t its most significant legacy, of course, in terms of a series that has informed, subconsciously or otherwise, intentionally or otherwise, much of the way in which twenty-first century conspiracy theory has been framed and discussed. It is however, uncontested that a first movie that was officially the “best thing ever”, that aesthetically and stylistically reinvigorated mainstream blockbuster cinema in a manner unseen again until Fury Road , squandered all that good will with astonishing speed by the time 2003 was over.

How do you melt somebody’s lug wrench?

Starman (1984) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s unlikely SF romance. Unlikely, because the director has done nothing before or since suggesting an affinity for the romantic fairy tale, and yet he proves surprisingly attuned to Starman ’s general vibes. As do his stars and Jack Nitzsche, furnishing the score in a rare non-showing from the director-composer. Indeed, if there’s a bum note here, it’s the fairly ho-hum screenplay; the lustre of Starman isn’t exactly that of making a silk purse from a sow’s ear, but it’s very nearly stitching together something special from resolutely average source material.

Remember. Decision. Consequence.

Day Break (2006) (SPOILERS) Day Break is the rare series that was lucky to get cancelled. And not in a mercy-killing way. It got to tell its story. Sure, apparently there were other stories. Other days to break. But would it have justified going there? Or would it have proved tantalising/reticent about the elusive reason its protagonist has to keep stirring and repeating? You bet it would. Offering occasional crumbs, and then, when it finally comes time to wrap things up, giving an explanation that satisfies no one/is a cop out/offers a hint at some nebulous existential mission better left to the viewer to conjure up on their own. Best that it didn’t even try to go there.

You cut my head off a couple of dozen times.

Boss Level (2021) (SPOILERS) Lest you thought it was nigh-on impossible to go wrong with a Groundhog Day premise, Joe Carnahan, in his swaggering yen for overkill, very nearly pulls it off with Boss Level . I’m unsure quite what became of Carnahan’s early potential, but he seems to have settled on a sub-Tarantino, sub-Bay, sub-Snyder, sub-Ritchie butch bros aesthetic, complete with a tin ear for dialogue and an approach to plotting that finds him continually distracting himself, under the illusion it’s never possible to have too much. Of whatever it is he’s indulging at that moment.

We got two honkies out there dressed like Hassidic diamond merchants.

The Blues Brothers (1980) (SPOILERS) I had limited awareness of John Belushi’s immense mythos before  The Blues Brothers arrived on retail video in the UK (so 1991?) My familiarity with SNL performers really began with Ghostbusters ’ release, which meant picking up the trail of Jake and Elwood was very much a retrospective deal. I knew Animal House , knew Belushi’s impact there, knew 1941 (the Jaws parody was the best bit), knew Wired was a biopic better avoided. But the minor renaissance he, and they, underwent in the UK in the early ’90s seemed to have been initiated by Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers, of all things; Everybody Needs Somebody was part of their That Sounds Good to Me medley, the first of their hits not to make No.1, and Everybody ’s subsequent single release then just missed the Top Ten. Perhaps it was this that hastened CIC/Universal to putting the comedy out on video. Had the movie done the rounds on UK TV in the 80s? If so, it managed to pass me by. Even bef