Topic: I Care A Lot

[Shameless Custard]

Seen this mentioned in a couple threads, but as it's a new film maybe it deserves its own

"A crooked legal guardian who drains the savings of her elderly wards meets her match when a woman she tries to swindle turns out to be more than she first appears".

Starring Rosamund Pike and Peter Dinklage

I thought this was excellent, with a great sociopathic central performance from Pike. The film improves further when Dinklage shows up, but no spoilers bruv

A well written nasty drama, with solid performances and a decent ending. I liked it a lot

It's on Amazon Prime, yup yup

[amputeeporn]

So, so so much fun - I think the final act maybe pushes things a little too far, I love the stuff it does but wonder if it becomes a slightly different movie than the one it started out as? With that said, I never stopped smiling, and it might be one of those things you worry less about the second time around, without your preconceptions getting in the way.

It really shows up all the awful, stretched out tv dramas posing as thrillers, too. It felt seriously invigorating to just see a tight, despicable, unapologetic pulp smash - I'd love to have seen it for the first time on the big screen.

Of course, there are already tedious fuckers writing reviews saying things like, WHO AM I SUPPOSED TO ROOT FOR? WHERE ARE THE LIKEABLE CHARACTERS? etc.

But if you don't LOVE that cunt lawyer, almost literally licking his lips with sleaze and what he imagines is charm, we're just on a different wavelength.

I think the Trump era gave us a lot of sincere message movies, but this felt so fresh and audacious by not giving a fuck about any of that. Great stuff.

[Nobody Soup]

I thought it was great, tight and fun. Just enough of an undercurrent of big ideas to get you thinking about it'd themes.

But if you don't LOVE that cunt lawyer, almost literally licking his lips with sleaze and what he imagines is charm, we're just on a different wavelength.

Yes. The actor must have cum when he was given that script, was literally the most fun you can have in a scene with 10 mins of dialogue.

[SteveDave]

Saw this last night and I've never wished for the death for a character more than I did for Marla. When the ending happened I genuinely thought it was going to turn out that everything after her car hit the water was some sort of dying fantasy and we'd see her at the bottom of that lake all bloated and green. It did turn into a weird action film after that point. I enjoyed Peter Dinklage knowing when he was beat and joining forces with her. I didn't see that coming.

[BlodwynPig]

I enjoyed Dinklage, first time I've seen him in anything. Lovely humorous undercurrent.

The rest stank. I mean morally. Softening the heinousness. The pay off at the end still gave her martyrdom in a way. A corporate sociopath's idea of a redemption play. "Hey guys, look I know we are fucking evil. But look how fun it is...ok ok, I'll throw you a bone and everyone can go home and feel good about themselves".

[BlodwynPig]

I thought it was great, tight and fun. Just enough of an undercurrent of big ideas to get you thinking about it'd themes.

Big ideas? You may have to expand on that. It wasn't that clever. Just corporate torture porn. I'm not sniping, I liked it - but it had a layer of grease that makes me want to avoid these slick modern 'moralising for the masses' films for a while.

[checkoutgirl]

Is the title a reference to a Faith No More song?

[Nobody Soup]

Big ideas? You may have to expand on that. It wasn't that clever. Just corporate torture porn. I'm not sniping, I liked it - but it had a layer of grease that makes me want to avoid these slick modern 'moralising for the masses' films for a while.

there were several nods to sexism and the way women are treated in the corporate world and there were nods to the corruption of the "american dream" and capitalism. and no, it didn't really resolve any of these things in a clever way or send a clear message, but I don't think a film always needs to to at least get you mulling them over in relation to the film so it's more than just a bunch of stuff happening. it's different when they're clumsily handled, but I don't think anything was here, they were just there as an undercurrent.

I really did not feel like it moralised, nor was it condoning the main characters, though possibly I might agree that Pike could have done with a dressing down at one point, she got to play it cool a bit too consistently.

I honestly cannot see how anyone would think this stank unless the characters annoyed them so much they had a visceral desire to see them not only fail in the film but as fictional creations.

[niat]

I honestly cannot see how anyone would think this stank unless the characters annoyed them so much they had a visceral desire to see them not only fail in the film but as fictional creations.

Yep, that's exactly why I hated this film. Enjoyed the first half but when I saw where the story was going and how long was still left I started to resent having wasted my time on it.

I think there's a good film to be made about this subject as it's so scandalous that lawyers can get away with this kind of shit.

[bgmnts]

Cartoonishly dislikable characters with no redeeming qualities are largely shit and make for a shit film.

The Wolf of Wall Street is a good example.

[Shameless Custard]

I didn't find them cartoonish. In fact I found it all too real. As Mrs Custard pointed out, it's terrifying that people like this really exist

But I do think they had at least one redeeming quality each. Pike in her love and devotion to her partner (who admittedly was also a piece of shit), and Dinklage in his love for his mother. Both are sociopathic arseholes overall, though

Spoilers -
I thought at one point that Pike would ultimately "win", but then her partner would piss off with the money or sell her out somehow. That could've been a fitting ending

I liked the ending they did go for, and it was satisfying to see a bullet finally go through her. They seeded it well throughout the film, by having the son wanting to get to her, and her saying that hardly anyone who threatens physical harm on her ever actually acts on it. So I don't think that was crowbarred on the end to give it some kind of "happy" ending. It's just what was always gonna happen. If you screw over enough people, etc

[mothman]

Isn’t it then just like loads of legal dramas, often histrionic TV movies (I think LA Law had one of these plot lines at least once a season), which often feature some well-meaning lawyer representing someone who’s guilty, but the law was broken in bringing them to trial, and there really is no choice but to go for a miscarriage of justice defence and they all feel awful abuts it but if you ignore the law when it’s convenient then what is the point of the law at all so oh no a guilty man is about to walk free and oh it’s OK someone turns up out of nowhere and shoots him so it’s all right.

Leaving you with the awareness that the law isn’t perfect but it’s flaws can be papered over by taking said law into your own hands.

[lipsink]

I loved this but felt a little let down by the last 20 minutes or so. Pike is great at playing psychopaths and Dinklage I particularly enjoyed watching the bits where he was trying not to lose his temper. The film felt like an epic showdown between 2 complete monsters.

[BlodwynPig]

The only cue that they gave to really tip the viewer into dislike for Dinklage's character was the shoehorned mule photos. Basically, 'any sympathy you may have for this character will not manifest now'. He was not a nice person, but Dinklage played it with a softness and humour, even when slapping Pike, that, if not for the mule photos, would have tipped the scales in his favour for 'goody' of the two.

[Thomas]

Just finished this - thought it was brilliant. Thrilling, funny, and sharp, with a great soundtrack (and a particularly good performance by Rosamund Pike).

I read it - in one of its themes - as a send-up of capitalist 'girlboss' feminism, the sort of 'feminism' that overlooks the blanket droning of foreign communities as long as the War Secretary is a woman. Vicious exploitation masquerading with a bit of personal empowerment patter, exemplified in Grayson's meteoric capitalist rise and news interview at the end.[1]

In the film, Marla touches on moments of genuine empowerment, such as when she mentions the many threats men have made against her. Some reviews, like this one, find this confusing, suggesting that the film doesn't know what it's trying to say. But I don't think it's confused at all. She obviously has a history of valid grievances, but the very words of her opening monologue demonstrate her journey into capitalistic exploitation. She has recognised the world is unfair and cruel - but has decided to go with it, join in, get in on the cruelty and exploitation herself - which is distinctly unfeminist, demonstrated by the fact that the only victims we see onscreen are elderly women.

As such, it's very fitting that she and Dinklage fail to beat each other and end up amalgamating into a corporate monster, only stopped by an errant character with little to no power. Marla, after all, had already amalgamated with the world she deemed cruel and unfair.

1.	it's interesting[1] to visit Twitter and see how many viewers interpreted the film as a film that actually subscribes to girlbossism, with Marla as its celebrated hero.  1.  I use the term 'interesting' loosely.

[Dex Sawash]

I didn't like it much but had resolved to keep quiet about it. The edit glitch made me shit on this film

[joaquin closet]

I read it - in one of its themes - as a send-up of capitalist 'girlboss' feminism, the sort of 'feminism' that overlooks the blanket droning of foreign communities as long as the War Secretary is a woman. Vicious exploitation masquerading with a bit of personal empowerment patter, exemplified in Grayson's meteoric capitalist rise and news interview at the end.[1]

In the film, Marla touches on moments of genuine empowerment, such as when she mentions the many threats men have made against her. Some reviews, like this one, find this confusing, suggesting that the film doesn't know what it's trying to say. But I don't think it's confused at all. She obviously has a history of valid grievances, but the very words of her opening monologue demonstrate her journey into capitalistic exploitation. She has recognised the world is unfair and cruel - but has decided to go with it, join in, get in on the cruelty and exploitation herself - which is distinctly unfeminist, demonstrated by the fact that the only victims we see onscreen are elderly women.

1.	it's interesting[1] to visit Twitter and see how many viewers interpreted the film as a film that actually subscribes to girlbossism, with Marla as its celebrated hero.  1.  I use the term 'interesting' loosely.

This is exactly how I interpreted it as well.

I saw some people saying they thought the girlfriend character was thrown in to make her more sympathetic... And I suppose I agree in a sense, but what I really think it is is a challenge from the director to the audience: will the couple's attractiveness and the girl power element make you overlook their extreme sociopathy?

I really enjoyed that abrasiveness, though I think it led to some of the "dramatic" scenes towards the back end of the film - i.e. after she'd escaped from the sinking car - feeling a bit inert. Her in the gas station, their emotional reunion... I just didn't care.

The very end was great though.

[SteveDave]

I'd be interested to learn if the lead character was written as a man originally but changed to a woman down the line.

[Thomas]

I saw some people saying they thought the girlfriend character was thrown in to make her more sympathetic... And I suppose I agree in a sense, but what I really think it is is a challenge from the director to the audience: will the couple's attractiveness and the girl power element make you overlook their extreme sociopathy?

I felt it was almost goading the viewer into revelling in the Thelma and Louise atmosphere - before reminding you that the only reason Marla and Fran are on any sort of adventure is because they've been exploiting the vulnerable.

If the film has an overall outlook, I think it's a comment on the 'can't beat 'em, join 'em' attitude. Marla has suffered hardship, but rather than oppose the injustices visited upon her, she has become hardened, and instead decides to join in with the world that hurt her. The bullied siding with the bullies (and ultimately getting offed by one of her own bullied victims).

It's about that sort of Thatcherite individualism. One person alone doesn't have the power to fight The Man - but they do have the option to sell out their class/gender/compatriots and join in with him (whilst justifying the decision with business talk about 'never wanting to be poor again'). In I Care a Lot, individuals have no power unless they're joining in with the profiteering. The only individual action to the contrary is murder, in lieu of any structural recourse, and the bloke is immediately hauled off by the authorities.

I'm sorry if glitcho buggo has turned up.

[Shameless Custard]

When the mother was literally snatched up from her home, out of the blue, completely against her will, I found that genuinely frightening. Imagine being her, enjoying your life quietly and happily, and then...that. it was like something out of The Twilight Zone, or Black Mirror. A voice being silenced as the dark hordes descend

Absolutely loved the mum going "Oh....you're fucked now!" when she finds out her son has heard about it

Really good film. Can't stop thinking about it this week

[DolphinFace]

I really enjoyed this so thanks for the heads-up. I did spend the entire film thinking 'is this real? Do the state hand over power of attorney as spontaneously as that? Has anyone really had a knock at their door and been told to pack a bag and had their home sold??'

[Vitalstatistix]

Liked the first twenty minutes but ended up hating this film. Any social commentary is drowned in cynicism, the film so clearly in thrall to its sociopathic heroine and its own flashy 'edginess'. Victims' experiences are largely discarded in favour of increasingly absurd and implausible B-movie twists. I honestly don't care about having likable protagonists but I resented having to spend two hours with such a boring and smug anti-hero.

[amputeeporn]

Re: how much the film ‘knows’ what it’s doing - of course it does. I thought it was interesting that when Marla’s own mother was threatened, she wrote her off as a sociopath - ah, we think, like mother like daughter - but then when she gets back to her own partner we see very clearly, emphatically, that they’re in love. It feels like the film is clarifying, ‘no, Marla’s not a sociopath - she’s a capitalist’

And I appreciated the distinction - one is, I guess, unavoidable if you’re born that way. The other is a choice and therefore perhaps more reprehensible.

[kidsick5000]

I really liked it. You're never sure just how it will turn out.
I am surprised though that the conclusion is so incredibly similar to Layer Cake's. It's not just that a character dismissed earlier by the lead pops up out of the blue to shoot them (both films' protagonists wearing crisp, pale colour suits) at their moment of triumph. In both films, these scenes are immediately preceded by a stylised montage narrated by the lead describing the nefarious industry they've just got the better of.
It doesn't really detract from your enjoyment, but it is *so* similar it can't be a coincidence.

[Mister Six]

Got horribly stressed out by this (just a bit burned out by the horrors of capitalism in my daily life, couldn't take it in my entertainment too, at least not right now) so only half-watched it after about 30 minutes, and tuned in a bit more towards the end, but I find the claim that Marla is supposed to be viewed as anything other than a total monster - much less inspirational - to be totally bizarre.

Her "I bet you think you can talk to me like this because I'm a woman" schtick seems obviously (to me) to be attacking the use of identity politics as a shield to distract from genuinely underhanded behaviour, and her past, while a reason for her monstrousness, isn't supposed to be a justification.

I don't think I watched it closely enough to make any judgements on its quality as a film, but the shift into daft pulp action at the end made it seem rather confused as to what it wanted to be, and the cinematography was crisp but lifeless in the way so many Netflix films are (maybe appropriately here). Definitely not going to watch it properly any time soon though.