Ian Thomas Malone

Movie Reviews Archive

Tuesday

5

November 2019

1

COMMENTS

The All-Americans Gives an Intimate Look into an East LA Tradition

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The idea of sport existing as a unifier offers comfort in these seemingly divided times. Beginning in 1925, the “East LA Classic” homecoming football game between rivals James A. Garfield High School and Theodore Roosevelt High School has grown to become one of the most popular annual high school games played in the country. In The All-Americans, director Billy McMillin explores this historic rivalry against the backdrop of the challenges imposed upon each school’s predominantly Latino population.

As its title suggests, much of the narrative in The All-Americans centers around the very question of what it means to be an American. Using soundbites from far right commentators, McMillin juxtaposes the hate too often spewed in the media with the faces of those most affected by the fear-mongering. Football is often seen as “America’s Game,” while Latino immigrants are often told to go back to “their” country, even those who have lived here their entire lives.

Several scenes depict classroom discussions of America’s uneasy relationship with nativism and the idea of the country serving as a “melting pot.” The students bring fascinating perspectives to the table, gently pushing back on the very concept of the American Dream. The All-Americans features several people who are undocumented, perpetually living with the concern that they may one day face deportation. Though Trump’s name is never uttered, he remains a looming presence throughout much of the narrative.

The film does an excellent job of explaining the importance of the East LA Classic, as well as the role that football plays in shaping the players’ lives. For most, playing on the team doesn’t carry any significant collegiate opportunities. Roosevelt’s coach speaks of his team’s 100% graduation rate, ensuring that players will leave school with a degree and the opportunities that come with it.

A few students from each team are given an added focus. One of these players became a father himself, juggling school, football, and providing for his kid while trying to lead a relatively normal life. Several scenes depict the player’s extended families, giving a broader sense of perspective to their stories, as well as the importance of the Classic itself. Several players explicitly remark that they started playing football just to be a part of this specific game, carrying the lineage of the near century-old event.

With time dedicated to the history of the classic, the actual game itself, both teams, their coaches, several players, and a broader discussion of the politics of immigration, The All-Americans aims to tackle quite a bit of material. Its runtime of just over ninety minutes doesn’t exactly lend itself well to all of these objectives, but McMillin has a strong grasp of pacing. The film never lingers too long in one area while giving the audience all it needs to follow along. One doesn’t even need to understand football to enjoy the film.

The All-Americans is a touching documentary, one that never tries to paint a false sense of finality by the end. Narrative resolution is a tough proposition when dealing with a bunch of high school students who will face plenty of greater hardships than what they’ve encountered on the field. Their lives are just beginning. The film does an excellent job of covering the role that the Classic played in their lives while never losing sight of the fact that in the end, it’s just a game.

Monday

4

November 2019

0

COMMENTS

The Return of Linda Hamilton Makes Terminator: Dark Fate A Worthwhile Experience

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The box office disappointment of 2015’s Terminator: Genisys might have signaled the end of Hollywood’s preeminent Judgement Day narrative, but such a decision would have ignored the elements of the film that worked. For all its timeline shortcomings, Genisys served as a great outlet for Arnold Schwarzenegger to prove that his iconic role could improve with age. Schwarzenegger’s “Pops” T-101 was funny, caring, and perfectly capable of kicking ass.

With that in mind, Terminator: Dark Fate served as a natural vessel for the return of the franchise’s other true iconic star. While Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Genisys both have merits as action films, the absence of Linda Hamilton’s Sarah Connor has deprived the series of its original emotional core. For all the emphasis that’s been placed on John Connor, it is Sarah Connor who has been responsible for saving the savior.

Dark Fate as a film is completely aware of the puzzling contradictions that exist within “chosen one” narratives. To be told that you will someday be a figure of great importance seems to diminish the notion that there’s plenty of choices to made along the way. Terminator has always been a series about saving the future, but to do that, one must naturally also keep the present out of harm’s way.

Daniella Ramos (Natalia Reyes) wasn’t born to lead a resistance. Knowledge of future actions hardly alters this dynamic. Heroes are made, not willed into existence. For all the ways that Dark Fate feels rooted in the past, Reyes never feels lost in the shuffle, ensuring that Ramos remains a vital presence in the film as all the chaos unfolds around her.

While Terminator has always been a feminist franchise, Dark Fate lets its heroines lead the narrative. Mackenzie Davis plays Grace, an enhanced human capable of taking on a “Rev-9” Terminator (Gabriel Luna), the franchise’s most menacing villain since Robert Patrick’s iconic T-1000. For all the guardians who have been sent back in time to protect the savior of humanity, Grace manages to combine the strength of the T-101 with the compassion of Kyle Reese.

Dark Fate shines brightest when the focus is on Hamilton, who puts forth one of the best performances of her career. Sarah Connor isn’t the primary focus of the film, but an essential piece of its narrative. Connor hasn’t lost any of her edge from Judgment Day, but the characters wears the scars of the past while still being capable of eliciting more than a few laughs. Hamilton and Davis have a natural chemistry that brings plenty of levity to the film’s otherwise grim tone.

Fitting with the film’s feminist dynamic, Schwarzenegger takes a backseat role, similar to that of Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard in Blade Runner 2049. The T-101 is still a vital piece of the narrative, but the film looks more to Hamilton than Schwarzenegger to be its elder states-person. This works for a lot of reasons, chiefly among them being that Schwarzenegger has had his time to shine in earlier sequels. His Dark Fate T-101 is a different take than his Genisys counter-part, but the films complement each other well at least in part because Dark Fate recognizes where to trod in this well-worn pasture.

Dark Fate isn’t a perfect movie by any means, but quite a satisfying journey for fans of the franchise. The film doesn’t really build on the format of the first one, the same model that’s been replicated by every sequel besides Salvation. For many, this return to the franchise is an unnecessary proposition.

It’s not exactly high praise to refer to something as more of the same, but Dark Fate has a firm understanding of the franchise’s mythology. Not every movie needs to reinvent the wheel, as long as its adaptation of the wheel remains an entertaining experience. Dark Fate brings together everything that fans loved about the first two Terminator films. Whatever timeline reboots lay ahead in the future for this franchise, the chance to see Sarah Connor once again in peak form should not be missed on the big screen.

Friday

1

November 2019

0

COMMENTS

Markie in Milwaukee Is a Powerful, Often Unsettling Transgender Narrative

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Transitioning is an incredibly difficult journey even under the best of circumstances. The highs of living out of the closet often contrast with the struggle for acceptance that far too many transgender people experience. Markie in Milwaukee documents ten years of turmoil that one transgender woman faced, coming to grips with her identity against a backdrop of an incredibly unsupportive community.

Markie Wenzel is a woman stuck between two worlds, facing a choice few ever have to consider. She’s an upbeat, soft-spoken person with a pleasant demeanor, if not a little socially awkward. Her height, close to seven feet, led to bullying at an early age, something that hardly let up as she began her transition in the mid 2000s.

As a minister in a fundamentalist Christian church, Markie encountered quite a lot of pushback from her community as she began to present as female. Her family all but abandoned her, refusing to accept a hiccup in an otherwise happy life.

The film offers a broad lens to examine Markie’s life at the various stages of transition, including the point where she decided to stop and return to life as Mark, a decision that was rewarded in the form of family visits, including a new granddaughter. Markie’s church took her back, basking in the glory of a sinner come to repent for the crime of being born different.

Markie in Milwaukee operates on an entirely different narrative wavelength than its subject, a moving narrative that highlights the many conflicts that transition brings out. Director Matt Kliegman largely lets Markie speak for herself, but the framing of the documentary often suggests that he’s at odds with the statements coming from Markie. The film carries the feel of belonging to Markie, but the audience is given plenty of leeway to suggest that there’s more beneath the surface that she’s not quite ready to tackle.

Kliegman puts the audience in a challenging position with regard to how to process Markie’s choices. Generally speaking, it’s considered inappropriate to second-guess the way a transgender person explains their identity. It is impossible to watch Markie in Milwaukee and not do just that.

This dynamic is most on display in scenes highlighting Markie’s church and her family. Despite a few efforts by Markie to suggest her detransition was not fueled by religious pressure, she contradicts herself on a few occasions. The footage from her church and children’s home demonstrates the intrinsic link between the two.

In all her years of transition, Markie found acceptance in the form of support groups and friendly strangers out in public. She didn’t appear to develop any meaningful connections beyond those surface level relationships. That kind of isolation is bound to be tough on anyone.

The saddest aspect of the film is the way in which Markie lives her life believing that she’s caused all this damage to her family. To say that that’s their problem, not hers, is an accurate reflection of the situation, yet Markie’s life is not improved by the notion that her identity shouldn’t be a burden on anyone else. For too many transgender people, the idea that our lives are an abomination is allowed to fester, tearing away at one’s psyche.

As a transition narrative, Markie in Milwaukee would have been improved by a stronger focus on the decision to embrace her old identity again. Kliegman touches on the subject a few times, most notably in a conversation between Markie and her therapist. One can certainly understand the sensitive nature of the subject matter, but the resolution to Markie’s story leaves more questions than it probably needed to.

Markie in Milwaukee is a flawed narrative, but a vitally important one in today’s climate. In many ways, Kliegman’s film is most valuable to the family members of transgender people, serving as a cautionary tale for the road that too many loved ones have to face alone. Markie Wenzel has been dealt a raw hand in life, but her story can help future generations to avoid the same hardships.

Wednesday

30

October 2019

0

COMMENTS

American Dharma Doesn’t Know What to Say About Steve Bannon

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

As repulsive as some may find him, Steve Bannon is an important figure in twenty-first century American politics. Leading the Trump campaign to victory in 2016 against seemingly all predictions earned the former head of Breitbart News a place in the history books. Esteemed director Errol Morris is no stranger to interviewing controversial Republican figures, most notably former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in The Unknown Known.

Morris’ new documentary American Dharma ostensibly aims to peel back the layers of Bannon, known for his bombastic rhetoric and policies that many deride as racist, xenophobic, and homophobic, to say the least. The film covers a large portion of Bannon’s life, from his upbringing to his rise as a right-wing power broker. Trouble is, Morris never really stakes out a territory to craft anything revelatory about a man who’s been the subject of media fascination for years now.

For his part, Bannon consistently looks like he’s having the time of his throughout the documentary. Noting his love of Morris’ Fog of War and the inspiration it gave him to make political films of his own for conservative audiences, Bannon clearly appreciates the chance to be the director’s next project. That reverence hardly translates into cooperation, as Bannon manages to sidestep nearly every controversial question Morris throws at him.

Morris’ line of inquiry is hardly of the softball nature, but American Dharma suffers from a lack of follow-ups. There are several occasions where Morris flat out asks if some of the policies, such as the travel ban, were racist in nature. He doesn’t really get an answer, nor does he pursue one.

With a runtime of a little over ninety minutes, American Dharma understandably lacks the time to cover every noteworthy aspect of Bannon’s life or even his political career. Morris spends so little time on Bannon’s White House tenure that a casual viewer might forget he was there at all. More time is dedicated to Bannon’s favorite films than the Trump White House.

It is in this chief regard that Morris misses the mark for his film. Bannon is no stranger to marquee interviews, the recipient of Time magazine covers and 60 Minute profiles. Events such as the Access Hollywood tape scandal have been covered extensively for years by several mediums. The time that Morris dedicates to the campaign comes at the expense of a discussion of actual policy that Bannon would have been responsible for as Chief Strategist in the White House.

American Dharma fails to present any new insight on Steve Bannon, a shame considering the man’s history of loose lips. Bannon famously served as a major source for Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury book, and gave an interview that was highly critical of the Trump administration to the progressive outlet The American Prospect days before his departure from the White House. Bannon certainly likes to share what he really thinks about policy and Donald Trump. Morris just didn’t manage to get much out of him.

Part of the problem with American Dharma may be the fact that unlike The Unknown Known, we’re still in the midst of the administration that the subject was a part of. Morris presents a broad portrait of Bannon, too often treading through the same terrain that’s been picked clean by a media that rarely talks about anything but Trump. American Dharma may have relevance to future generations unfamiliar with the daily media play-by-play, but it’s unclear what he expected a 2019 audience to make of this film. We’ve seen this show before.

Tuesday

29

October 2019

0

COMMENTS

The Lighthouse is a Contemplative Gem Bound to Captivate and Terrify

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

On the surface, a film like The Lighthouse seems to exist in stark contradiction to pretty much anything else you could find playing at your local theatre. Filmed on one location, using 35 mm black and white film and only two actors in speaking roles, Robert Eggers’ second feature carries the aura of a stage play throughout its narrative. Throw in a runtime of nearly two hours, the whole experience feels designed to capture the essence of cabin fever that being stuck on a rock would inevitably create.

Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson) and Thomas Wake (William Dafoe) are two lighthouse keepers, or “wickies,” assigned to a small rocky island for a four-week stay. Wake, the senior wickie, finds himself disinterested in the mundane duties, leaving Winslow to handle all the manual labor himself. Monotony and time make for uneasy bedfellows, giving a sense of unreliability to the narrative.

Pattinson and Dafoe give two of the best performances of their careers, putting seemingly every emotion on display throughout the film. There’s an impressive depth to their relationship, reflective of their isolated surroundings. Much of the film plays out like a horror movie, but there’s plenty of moments of natural comedy that help ease the tension.

Eggers proves his directorial skills time and again throughout the narrative. The Lighthouse is a quiet, almost contemplative film, but there’s a deliberate sense to the pacing. Some of the sequences exude claustrophobia, putting the audience right in the midst of the dilemma that Wake and Winslow find themselves in.

The film’s cinematography is also a highlight, impressive considering the small size of the island. Eggers uses the ocean around the lighthouse to aid the sense of isolation, as well as the magnitude of the powers beyond the wickie’s control. In that regard, space is both minuscule and grandiose.

The only issue with The Lighthouse lies with its runtime. 110 minutes is long for many movies, especially one filmed in a small space with two actors. There is the sense that Eggers deliberately drew out the narrative to mirror the plight of his characters, hopelessly stuck with no end in sight.

Trouble is, there’s only so many times that Winslow and Wake can experience the same conflicts until the whole exercise starts to feel a bit monotonous. The notion of purpose behind the monotony clashes with the idea that the film spends a bit too much time hovering above its destination before landing. It could be fifteen minutes shorter without losing a beat.

Despite the overly drawn out third act, The Lighthouse is a remarkable film. It’s funny, horrifying, uncomfortable, and deeply strange, all at the same time. Minimalism isn’t a trait often truly appreciated on the big screen. Eggers crafted a quietly beautiful narrative that’s well-worth a trip to the theatre.

Monday

28

October 2019

1

COMMENTS

Joker Succeeds Due to the Strength of Joaquin Phoenix’s Performance

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight Trilogy” helped popularize the idea that superhero movies could exist as reflections of reality rather than their comic book source material. For decades, the Joker has existed as an over-the-top sinister arch villain, drawing a sick delight from being responsible for some of Batman’s darkest hours, including killing Jason Todd and paralyzing Barbara Gordon. For big screen feature films, the criminal mastermind’s terror stems from utterly realistic nature of his tyranny, the kind of evil not dissimilar from those who commit mass shootings or other heinous acts.

Todd Phillips’ Joker rarely feels like a comic book movie. Instead, his take on the iconic villain plays out as more of long think piece on the nature between isolation and evil. For a character who’s been committing crimes for eighty years, the comics don’t tend to spend a lot of time on the background information that led the Joker on the path of darkness. There isn’t even really an established history regarding the character’s real name.

Joaquin Phoenix presents Arthur Fleck as a pathetic individual. Arthur is clearly mentally ill and lacks any meaningful connection to the outside world besides his similarly delusional mother (Frances Conroy). Arthur wants to be a comedian, but it’s unclear if he actually knows what a joke is.

Phoenix’s mesmerizing lead performance is more than enough to carry the narrative past many of its meandering moments. Giving one of the strongest performances of his storied career, Phoenix plays Fleck with such nuance that it’s often hard to take your eyes off him in each scene. Many talented actors have played the Joker, but Phoenix ensures that his take will go down as one of the best takes on the character.

As a film, Joker is a bit diminished by Phillips’ approach to potential sympathy that one might feel toward the film’s “protagonist,” a label that feels uncomfortable if not accurate. Arthur Fleck is a very bad man who’s led about as tragic a life as one could present on film. Never lost on the audience is the sense that the Joker represents a failure on both fronts of the “nature vs. nurture” debate. The narrative fully explains how this monster came to exist, but Phillips isn’t interested in telling anyone how to feel about Arthur.

Some may appreciate that approach, giving the audience full leeway to come to their own conclusions. Situations are rarely as black and white as many films make them out to be, but Joker feels utterly comfortable swimming around in the grey. Arthur can be grey and sympathetic, understandably despicable. Whether those implications should be transferred onto Fleck’s real-world counterparts is a different story, albeit one where the lines might seem a little blurred.

The other aspect of Joker that doesn’t quite work is its desire to exist as part of Gotham’s larger lore while simultaneously being about as far removed from a comic book movie as has ever been presented on screen. Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen) plays a supporting role, an inclusion that feels more obligatory than out of narrative necessity. The Joker is without a doubt the most well-known comic book villain in history. There isn’t any explicit reason why the Wayne family needs to be included in his story. Phillips hardly makes the case for their presence in this film.

Joker is a triumph largely due to Phoenix’s performance. The film has a lot of flaws, but Phoenix keeps the narrative afloat with his commitment to the character. For a genre wrapped up in franchises and connected universes, it’s rather refreshing to see a movie with a concrete beginning, middle, and end.

Saturday

28

September 2019

0

COMMENTS

Between Two Ferns: The Movie Is a Serviceable Adaptation Best Enjoyed with Low Expectations

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The idea of doing a movie based on Between Two Ferns seems natural in many ways, if not a little daunting for a web series that’s typically presented in small doses. The streaming world has changed quite a lot since its parent company Funny or Die launched in 2007. With Netflix able to provide the budget and platform for a feature release, it feels only inevitable that Zach Galifianakis’ awkward talk show would expand.

The biggest challenge presented for Between Two Ferns: The Movie is the staying power of the gag. For a web series that only put out a few short episodes a year, an expansion requires the concept to grow, at least a little bit. The movie version sort of rises to the task, taking the gag on the road in an effort to secure Galifianakis the character a bigger late-night television show.

Comedy is generally not a form of entertainment that lends itself well to explanation. If you have to describe why something’s funny, part of the joke has a habit of losing its humor. For ten years, Galifianakis savaged celebrities on Between Two Ferns without offering a reason behind the rudeness.

Perhaps understandably, the worst part of Between Two Ferns: The Movie is the explanation. Will Ferrell plays a fictitious version of himself as the founder of Funny or Die, having picked up Galifianakis’ public access show due to the unexpected comedic nature of his interview style. It’s hardly the worst explanation in the world, serving as an obligatory plot device, but it’s not very funny either. As a result, the first half of the film drags quite a bit, learning how to be a movie at a cost to its funniest bits.

The film does get quite a bit funnier when it figures out its kinks. Lauren Lapkus, Ryan Gaul, and Jiavani Linayao play the parts of Galifianakis’ crew, serving as suitable counterweights to their host’s abrasive nature. The spotlight rarely moves off Galifianakis, but the film does a good job fleshing out its supporting cast a bit.

The celebrity cameos are mostly pretty hilarious, with Brie Larson and Benedict Cumberbatch providing the most laughs. An exchange with David Letterman gives a glimpse of a direction that the film could’ve taken itself in, shining a critical lens on Galifianakis that’s mostly absent from the rest of the narrative. The biggest disappointment of the celebrity cameos is that the film doesn’t take the chance to explore the emotional turmoil that could be brought on by his abrasive style of questioning.

Between Two Ferns: The Movie is a competent film that delivers plenty of laughs, while never quite aiming for the high bar set by its source material. Diehard fans of the web series will undoubtedly find much to enjoy in this narrative. The combined comedic genius of Galifianakis and director/co-screenwriter Scott Aukerman were certainly capable of putting out something better. The film never runs the risk of soiling Between Two Ferns’  legacy, but does little to improve it either.

Friday

20

September 2019

1

COMMENTS

Downton Abbey Is a Welcome Return Bound to Satisfy Long-time Fans

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews

The series finale of Downton Abbey perfectly wrapped up the show in a way that left plenty of room for a return visit to the great country estate. For some, the film might seem superfluous, an unnecessary epilogue to a series that already saw a proper ending. The familiar sounds of Downton’s theme song coupled with the first shot of the beloved castle are bound to warm the hearts of dedicated fans eager for a few more hours spent with these characters.

To creator & screenwriter Julian Fellowes’ credit, he knows when to not tinker with a formula that already works. As a movie, Downton Abbey closely resembles the Christmas specials that capped off each series, a bit more of a cinematic feel than the average episode, but not much more. The extensive helicopter shots of Highclere Castle are just about the only aspect that set the film apart from its source material.

The film makes quick work of reassembling the pre-finale status quo of the series. Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) enjoys his retirement for all of five minutes before being summoned back to Downton. The post-service lives of Mr. Molesley (Kevin Doyle) and Mrs. Patmore (Lesley Nicol) are practically whisked out of memory. There are even kitchen maids present for the first time since the end of series five.

With the King and Queen set to visit Downton, the film finds itself a suitable plot to serve as the backdrop for all the side plots that make the series so beloved. As a show, Downton has always pulled off the big moments quite well, but the show has always been about the little moments. The film possesses all the trimmings of a feature while never losing sight of the smaller-scale magic between the characters that made Downton come alive.

As expected, there’s a fair amount of over-the-top melodrama that seemingly comes out of left field. Fellowes finds a way to include subplots for seemingly every single character, some that work better than others. Even the new characters, particularly the King’s attaché, find themselves with thoroughly fleshed out storylines.

There are a couple of plots that feel a bit stuffed in, clearly designed in service to the characters rather than the narrative. The Dowager Countess (Maggie Smith) is never short on one-liners, though, like series six’s overly-drawn out hospital plotline, her talents might have been better spent on a nobler cause. The absence of Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode) from the bulk of the narrative left Lady Mary (Michelle Dockery) to focus primarily on the visit, bound to disappoint those who wanted to see a bit more from the show’s leading actress. Lady Edith (Laura Carmichael), the often put-upon middle child of the Crawley family, supplies much of the emotional drama.

Like Lady Mary, Mr. Barrow (Rob James-Collier) finds himself looking like a bit of an odd-man-out despite being a central figure in the show’s narrative. Much of this is a product of the film’s desire to integrate his butler predecessor Carson back into the heart of Downton. Longtime fans of Mr. Barrow will undoubtedly find themselves smiling at the story carved out for the closeted servant.

Much of the narrative is totally over-the-top in a way that only seems fitting for a film designed solely to give longtime fans two more hours with the characters they love. There’s absolutely no learning curve present for newcomers to Downton, or even casual fans who might not remember where Daisy (Sophie McShera) left things off with Andy (Michael C. Fox) or the fate of Lord Grantham’s (Hugh Bonneville) valet Mr. Bates (Brendan Coyle) who spent much of the series accused of various murders.

The viewers who found the very idea of a Downton Abbey movie unnecessary will certainly remain unconvinced. For a show about change, the film seeks to uphold the status-quo as much as possible, only throwing a cursory glance toward the themes that drove the show. This story already has an ending.

For those of us who long for the Sunday evenings spent with the Crawley family and their servants, Downton Abbey hits practically every note. The narrative isn’t perfect, but Fellowes and director Michael Engler know how to give fans exactly what they want. Revivals often tinker with the formula just to switch things up. Downton Abbey plays the tunes everyone wants to hear, an immensely satisfying follow-up to one of the great television programs of the twenty-first century.

Wednesday

18

September 2019

0

COMMENTS

Powered By Strong Lead Performances, Hustlers Is a Delightful, Thought-Provoking Thriller

Written by , Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The 2008 financial meltdown affected practically every industry in America. Millions of people saw their livelihoods affected with little recourse from the government, which reserved its bailouts for the same sectors that caused the mess in the first place. No one went to jail for all this carnage.

Hustlers is a film that depicts an industry that rarely saw any attention through this fiasco. Nightclubs rely on wealthy patrons to keep the drinks flowing, the DJs spinning, and the girls dancing. Without the stream of bills flowing from the businessmen to the dancers, a lot of women found themselves in desperate circumstances, forced to accept subprime working conditions just to squeak out a living.

Dorothy/Destiny (Constance Wu) is a girl with plenty of ambition. She wants a glamorous life, a sense of self-reliance, and the ability to provide for her elderly grandmother who raised her. She struggles to navigate the world of the strip club to find the ever-elusive high rollers, the kind of patrons with the ability to give the women plenty of financial security for themselves.

Dorothy finds a mentor in Romona (Jessica Lopez), a talented dancer with a deep Rolodex. The two form a kind of mother/daughter relationship, with a genuine bond that proves vital when their world comes crashing down in the wake of the 2008 crisis. Dancing ceased to become all about the fantasy, with customers demanding sexual lines be crossed.

With the rules of engagement redefined, Romona and Dorothy take their destinies into their own hands, establishing a routine to drug wealthy men and con thousands of dollars from them under the guise of a wild night out. The world of strip clubs provides a bit of cover, with many of their marks too embarrassed to go to the police about what had happened. The lines of right and wrong are blurred in a world where the victims aren’t particularly sympathetic, the same kinds of selfish executives who brought down the financial sector in the first place.

Though Hustlers possesses a strong ensemble cast, Jessica Lopez completely captivates as Romona. She’s a three-dimensional character with complex flaws, which Lopez thoroughly explores over the course of the film’s two-hour runtime. Lopez has a keen ability to draw the spotlight, but also to direct it toward her co-stars, most of whom get their own chance to shine.

Wu’s Dorothy is a similarly complex character, whose emotions about their con are shown in a different fashion than Romona. Hustlers frequently bounces around in time, dedicating a portion of the narrative to an interview of Dorothy by a journalist named Elizabeth (Julia Stiles), who is writing about the story after the key players had all been busted. Dorothy and Romona share familial bonds, but the film allows the two actresses the latitude to color outside the lines of what the audience might expect from their dynamic. Strands of The Great Gatsby and Goodfellas are present in their relationship, but Hustlers is committed to plotting its own course.

The greatest strength of Hustlers is the film’s ability to analyze morality without drawing conclusions. What Romona and Dorothy did was bad. Their motives cannot be adequately attributed to notions of survival or providing for their families. The sheer selfishness on display is never mitigated by any other factor.

Film is full of anti-heroes whose actions are remembered alongside the feelings their deeds evoked. Hustlers never excuses the actions of its characters, while giving the audience the freedom to choose where to lend their sympathies. Director and writer Lorene Scafaria has crafted an excellent film bound to inspire discussions of morality for years to come.

Wednesday

18

September 2019

0

COMMENTS

Corporate Animals Is Trapped Under the Weight of a Lackluster Script

Written by , Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Workplace comedies often age better than other forms of humor, possessing an easy to relate to quality regardless of the industry being depicted. Incompetent, self-centered bosses are hardly a dime a dozen. Neither is the idea of a company spending money it doesn’t really have on something as silly as a cave spelunking retreat.

Corporate Animals is a film that aims to capture the zeitgeist of worker disenfranchisement. Demi Moore plays Lucy, a racially insensitive fool running Incredible Edibles, a company that makes consumable crockery. Lucy has no trouble stealing her employee’s ideas, or claiming indigenous heritage. Her bits are funny for a few minutes, but the character is so one-dimensional that she starts to grow tiresome not very long into the movie.

To make matters worse, Moore looks increasingly bored as the film goes on. Lucy starts off the film uttering cliché after cliché, before taking on more of a leadership role as the group becomes trapped in a cave. Given Lucy’s importance to the narrative, it doesn’t really make a lot of sense that she was initially depicted in such a superficial manner.

In many ways, Corporate Animals feels like it was written as a spec script for a sitcom that ended up being stretched out for a feature film, much to the detriment of the narrative. The jokes are fairly frontloaded, leaving the second half of the movie rather empty as the gags wear thin. The film has a fairly talented ensemble cast, with Karan Soni and Isiah Whitlock Jr. giving performances that help buoy the film through some of its boring parts. Unfortunately, there’s just too much downtime to make up for.

Much of the film takes place in a single cave location, the kind of set you see a billion times on various Star Trek episodes. The minimalist setting gives the cast a much more heightened sense of responsibility to entertain the audience, something the script doesn’t seem all that prepared to handle. The narrative just kind of strolls along with little sense urgency, even when cannibalism is introduced.

The film’s lackluster second half exposes a broader problem with the narrative. The characters constantly hint at broader problems with the company, stuff that this film doesn’t have the time, or likely the budget, to explore. The script establishes a lot of strong rapports between the ensemble, but it can’t cover up the sense that there’s so much missing from this story. Perhaps making matters worse is the presence of Ed Helms in a minor role, naturally evoking comparisons to The Office that don’t do the film any favors.

Thematically, the film is totally all over the place. It tries to poke fun at corporate incompetence, start-up culture, and green innovation among other topics, never really sticking with one subject for very long. You get the sense that Corporate Animals wanted to be some kind of satire, but its messaging is too scattershot to resemble actual commentary.

Corporate Animals is a mess of a comedy that wastes its talented cast with a meandering script that’s too light on jokes to make for a worthwhile experience. The plot might have made for an interesting twenty minutes of television. Even with a runtime of under 90 minutes, this narrative is stretched far too thin to carry a feature-length film.