A legal guardian is abusing her powers in order to gain financial benefits. However, she picked the wrong victim and is now facing some serious pushback.
“I Care a Lot” seems to be partially rooted in reality because there are more stories surfacing in which a legal caretaker is trying to gain financial benefits. The case of Britney Spears’ autonomy from her conservatorship is just one example. Therefore, we can say that this movie is very relevant, and that there is a need for it to be told. However, the manner in which this story is told is totally ridiculous.
Let’s start with the protagonist. She is mean, selfish ,and cynical. It is always difficult for the audience to tolerate a main character who is highly unlikeable. Therefore, if a writer decides to make such a character the protagonist then the writer will have to make this character suffer. If this doesn’t happen then the vast majority of your audience will stop watching. One example is “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013) where the protagonist is also a crook, but we also see him suffer. Additionally, we see him do ridiculous, but funny stuff because it’s a proper parody. “I Care a Lot” doesn’t come across as a parody, and this is exactly its main problem. One could argue that this movie is a parody because some of the characters are undeveloped stock characters. However, in my opinion there is a huge difference between a well written parody, and undeveloped characters which are just ridiculous, and unrealistic. I really think that they tried to mimic “The Wolf of Wall Street” but failed because of the lack of parody elements.
Additionally, an antagonist is introduced whose job it is to protect the victim of our protagonist. It is here that this movie becomes totally ridiculous and silly. Moreover, there are serious plot holes which makes the movie really unrealistic. One example is that the antagonist chooses the most difficult method to protect, or help the victim. We as the audience understand that if the antagonist would have chosen the most logical way out then this movie would only have lasted one hour. Therefore, it is the writer’s job to create something which is at least somewhat convincing and realistic. There are many ways in which the protagonist, and the antagonist could have clashed in a realistic way, but the writer decided to go for the easy way out. Sometimes the easy way out contains the parody method. However, here it is just annoying and silly because there is no parody. To be more clear, it is as if you would choose to open your front door with your big toe in order to escape from a fire. It just doesn’t make sense given the situation.
What is even worse in my opinion is that there is no form of the ‘fall of the evil’ in which the ‘good’ prevails over the ‘bad’. You can even make the argument that there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ within this movie. However, the majority of the audience will hope that the antagonist will take out the protagonist. My opinion is a little different because the protagonist, and antagonist can both be described as ‘evil’. Therefore, I personally didn’t care anymore about any of them because it was too cynical, and silly. Again, If the audience doesn’t care about any of the characters then people just ‘switch off’. It would have been much better if our antagonist would not have been involved in human trafficking, and would ‘only’ be involved in drug related crimes.
However, there are a few positive aspects; the actors did a good job, and the director did create a unique atmosphere. I really enjoyed the set design, and setting because it felt appropriate to the premise of this story. There was also one very interesting neon scene, but it felt a little out of place because there was no clear purpose for it.
|J Blakeson||(written by)|
|Rosamund Pike||Marla Grayson|
|Peter Dinklage||Roman Lunyov|
|Dianne Wiest||Jennifer Peterson|
Categories: Film Reviews Cat