Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Reviews for: I Care a Lot

jmg999
CONTAINS SPOILERS2/10  3 years ago
This was fucking horrific. This scriptwriter should be forced to find a new career. [spoiler]The second that Rosamund Pike was kidnapped, I thought to myself, "He's either going to propose, or they're going to go into business together. The problem was in getting to the point, where this actually happened. These Russian mobsters must've been the most incompetent buffoons on the planet to not be able to finish off two individuals, who they'd already pretty much brought to w/in an inch of their life. This was such an incredible stretch that it made this movie absolutely ridiculous.[/spoiler]

Aside from this, the fact that the writer tried to make these two women sympathetic characters screams that there's something really off w/ this writer. On what planet are people who take advantage of, and essentially murder, some of the most vulnerable members of society sympathetic?

On one last note, I've never been a fan of Rosamund Pike. I'd seen her in two previous films, where she was not good at all: Jack Reacher and Gone Girl. In the former, she's so melodramatic, it's difficult to watch, and it's even more difficult to take her character seriously. In the latter, although she's playing a character w/ Antisocial Personality Disorder, that doesn't necessarily mean someone devoid of affect, which is exactly how she played that role. She may as well have been a talking stump in that movie.

I wasn't going to watch this film for this very reason, but when she won the Golden Globe, I figured that she'd probably be pretty good. However, something about her just wasn't right. She had this odd grin in a lot of scenes, where it either didn't fit, or it seemed like it would've been inappropriate, if it had been a real-life situation. I just find her acting to be really off-putting. Luckily, both Peter Dinklage and Dianne Wiest are always top-notch performers.
Like  -  Dislike  -  33
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by LNero
one year ago
@jmg999 Sympathetically, it seems you actually did miss the point and the message of this film. It's a merit of the script that it could tell the story of such reprehensible characters and still be entertaining and make the audience care to continue watching them. But the film is not sympathetic to her, or anyone of the characters that it spends the most time with. The ending, and the second appearance of the man from the beginning, is extremely important. It's a morality play like an Aesop fable.<br /> <br /> I haven't seen Pike in much of anything else where she had a real role to play, but I found her characterization of a cold sociopath to be just right.
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by jmg999
one year ago
@lnero Thank you for your response. Admittedly, my original post was quite over the top. Obviously, I felt that the script was flawed, but aside from that, I clearly felt that Ms. Pike's portrayal of the character in this film felt a bit off. I don't believe that she was meant to be a sociopath in this film, but she was playing someone w/ antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) in _Gone Girl_. In that role, she played it cool meaning that she played the entire film w/ a blank stare. It was unrealistic of those w/ ASPD. I take somewhat of an affront to some of these characterizations, b/c I studied research psychology in grad school, so I'm more familiar w/ personality disorders than most screenwriters. If you take a look at this link, it'll show you the criteria for ASPD in the _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition_ (DSM-V) (https://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf).<br /> <br /> ASPD, in addition to being indicative of the listed criteria, is often comorbid for other personality disorders, or at the very least, certain criteria of other personality disorders, since a certain number of criteria must be met in order for a diagnosis of a given personality disorder to be made. If you're interested in this, there was a study performed in 2013, where forensic psychiatrists and cinema critics selected 126 fictional, psychopathic characters based on "the realism and clinical accuracy of their profiles" (https://www.sakkyndig.com/psykologi/artvit/leistedt2013.pdf). They listed the most accurate portrayals based on this analysis. There was also an article written about this empirical research document (https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/gory-details/most-and-least-realistic-movie-psychopaths-ever). <br /> <br /> Just a side note, psychopathy isn't a recognized personality disorder in the DSM-V. It was removed after the DSM-III and replaced w/ ASPD, which focused more on the behavioral aspects of psychopathy and less on the personality characteristics (https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/ce-corner-psychopathy).
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  10

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by LNero
one year ago
@jmg999 I can understand about having trouble with the way Hollywood and directors/actors use and sensationalize mental disorders. And yes, as far as my using "sociopath", or there being references to "psychopaths", it's difficult to get away from such language when referring specifically to people who harm other people in the way the film shows with how it goes along with a news item. The general public misuses pretty much every term of art -- in psychology or otherwise -- so I can't help but think it's almost better when they get a clean break like when the DSM writers removed it in lieu of another word that won't likely be used and abused by the general public. I did personally try to stop referring to real people who might potentially have ASD as sociopaths when I read about the DSM changing it a few years ago.<br /> <br /> And I do remember reading an article on the paper you mention when it was released. Thanks for the reminder; I may give it another look. I'm still waiting for an explicit example of Autism Spectrum being represented in a balanced way that isn't sensationalized. The last film I saw with that was _Night Clerk_. Pretty mediocre script, and I wasn't happy with the way they treated it, but it's not _A Beautiful Mind_. Same with ADHD. Traits in characters everywhere, but not mentioned. I also think it's a bad terminology for what may not even be representative traits of someone diagnosed with it. I still think we have a long way to go to find and properly treat that in society. --Uh, sorry for the rant.
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
MrBLAQK
CONTAINS SPOILERS5/10  3 years ago
The first 90 minutes of this movie are absolutely fantastic. They build up Marla as such a despicable, horrid creature that I was actively begging for the Mafia to get sick revenge on her.

The last 30 minutes are Season 8 Game of Thrones level of terrible and ruin what was about to be one of my favorite movies this year. The steps they want to strain credibility were insane. Firstly her surviving after being drugged and put in the water were questionable. The mafia failing to kill her girlfriend was just...how in the world did they fail killing that girl?

Marla just fell in the water (and I'm not going into the 3 minutes she was able to kick in a glass front window underwater and maintain holding her breath), but she still has her wallet to buy things at the convenience store. She gets to her girlfriend literally just before the place blows up, which she had no control over because she literally waited for a taxi.

They complain that they have nothing left but the diamonds, and but they also apparently have a handy wig, a taser, some morphine knockout drugs to pull off some James Bond type of killing of Peter Dinklage. And then when Dinklage survives, he agrees to be her partner. Look, I get she's smart and was gonna kill it with the mafia. But the shit she did was unforgivable, and it strains my belief that Dinklage wouldn't just go out and torture her the first chance he gets. They did not present him as being a "money first" guy, so him overlooking the mother being thrown IN A PSYCHIATRIC WARD is nuts.

Look, I enjoyed 70% of this movie. It was an excellent horror thriller to that point. I would've loved if this movie went the route of Dinklage and the mob being mostly outsmarted by the crazy, maniacally, absolutely dastardly woman. But that movie NEEDED to end with Dinklage personally killing Marla. No if, ands or buts, anything but that ending ruins the point they spent the rest of the movie going for.

It really hurts me to trash this movie, because Pike was fantastic again in her role as a villain and Dinklage really made me want his character to succeed. But that ending was the worst type of cop out possible.
Like  -  Dislike  -  17
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by ZombZ
3 years ago
@mrblaqk most of your criticism is fair[spoiler], but I wanna point out that if you wanna make someone’s death seem like an accident, it’s a good idea to leave them with their wallet. Not observing their death is a bad idea tho.<br /> The house was not about to explode. The gas was just meant to poison her, which is completely insane after they’ve already beaten her to a pulp and trashed the house. These people were terrible murderers. [/spoiler]
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  20

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by joshvaughn777
3 years ago
@mrblaqk exactly! I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by Mrs Megumi
3 years ago
@mrblaqk well put, my thoughts exactly! still enjoyed it tho!
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by misnomer
3 years ago
@mrblaqk kudos! This was one of the most fair and relatable reviews I've read in a long time. You've made some excellent points (most of which I am still thinking about as I'm still watching the movie as I write this), I definitely understand your frustration. What sort of "professional killer" doesn't stick around to confirm its victim's death? So much potential thrown down the drain by a very, very anti-climatic and ludicrous final third of the movie. Maybe they'll remake this one in a few years and give it the ending it deserves.
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by swanqueenz
3 years ago
@mrblaqk Completely agree with everything you said!
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by polo247
3 years ago
after she didn't die in the car I stopped it because for me she did die in the car. end of film .
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Reply by Katurian
5 months ago
I liked a lot of this movie but also felt a number of big choices let it down. I didn’t really care so much about her kicking out the windscreen because they were trying to build her up as unusually driven, calm and competent. You could probably complain about many aspects of the car going in the water and although there were more believable and intelligent ways for her to escape, it was simple fact that her killers chose such a risky way (in that it might not work) to kill her and didn’t follow up to make sure she was dead.<br /> <br /> The ending was very unsatisfying and felt rushed but it made sense that her bad deeds caught up with her. Dinklage killing her would have needed a lot of rewrites to work. Like he said, they both won and becoming rich would have made them trust each other. Her death was bad for him. <br /> <br /> If anything her death should have somehow exposed Peter and had him sent to prison as well. <br /> <br /> The mother of the guy who shoots Marla should have been mentioned more. They should have identified a specific tactic that Marla used on her out of spite for her son spitting on her. Then when Marla becomes mega rich she makes that tactic an unofficial company policy, it would have then made more sense and been more satisfying when he killed her.
Reply  -  Like  -  Deslike  -  00

Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
CinemaSerf
/10  2 years ago
Could this really happen? "Marla Grayson" (Rosamund Pike) is a scheming, manipulative creature who takes advantage of folk in difficulty (real or otherwise) so she can put them in managed accommodation, drugged up their eyeballs, whilst she realises, and disposes of, whatever assets they may have had on the outside. It's a clever network of conspirators - reliant on a justice system predicated on respect for the professional opinions offered to it by doctors, care home managers and, of course, by this thoroughly odious woman. She and girlfriend "Fran" (Eiza González) alight on their latest mark - "Jennifer" (Dianne Wiest) and all is going to plan before we discover that she wasn't quite the woman they thought, and that powerful interests have taken an interest in getting her free and her possessions back... Enter Peter Dinklage who manages to illicit a sort of comic menace (there's a fun scene where he shields his face from a bank camera as if to hide his identity, - amongst a great crowd of other men of his height - not!?) Anyway, he determines to have the woman freed and is a man of some considerable resource. "Grayson" fights back and what was, until now, quite an interesting story descends quickly into the realms of silliness. Her character is clever and shrewd, but as so often happens with these kind of films - she quickly acquires the skills of a trained ninja whilst he, the fearful gangster, ends up looking little more dangerous that yesterday's milk. It is almost as if someone wrote the first forty minutes or so, then went for a tea break and his 5 year old child finished it. Eventually, the ending did provide me with the result I wanted, coming from the left-field for a tiny twist and Pike is pretty good at the start - she depicts this heartless woman skilfully, raising heckles as she goes - it's just a shame that it all fell to pieces so quickly, and so thoroughly...
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
msbreviews
/10  3 years ago
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @
https://www.msbreviews.com

When it comes to Rosamund Pike, it doesn't really matter the type of film she's doing, I'm always in. Her constantly dedicated, incredible performances strongly grasp me to the screen every single time, so I expected I Care a Lot to follow the same path. From the most recent Radioactive to one of her most famous roles in Gone Girl, passing through numerous other memorable displays, Pike just can't deliver a bad interpretation. Being this my first viewing of a J Blakeson's movie, and with Netflix offering their pristine production value, I must state that I'm surprised with how much I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Let me begin with what I think really makes this movie so attractive: its screenplay.

Pike and co. all deliver outstanding performances, and I'll get to those, but Blakeson's script is both crazy and smart. If the premise isn't clear enough, capitalism is a significant theme throughout the entire runtime. From the rich-poor depressing yet realistic comparisons to the ruthless competition between the so-called sharks of this economic system, I Care a Lot provides excellent parallelism to the real world. The not-that-implicit messages regarding this topic are mostly delivered by Marla Grayson, a protagonist who doesn't shy away from assuming her lioness status.

Possessing cunning knowledge of both the pros and cons of capitalism and its borderline legal cheats, the viewer accompanies Marla through her exceptionally captivating process of acquiring and profiting from a new target, just like hundreds of companies and CEOs around the world do without most people realizing it. When Marla finds a worthy competitor, Blakeson risks its grounded story, replacing it with an absolutely lunatic second half, characterized by absurd, out-of-this-world character and plot decisions, which would be a major issue if its purpose wasn't precisely to show the ridiculous - and criminal - ambition of top-tier capitalists.

I can't deny it gets a tad too mad and irrational for my taste, but having in mind the context and Blakeson's goal, I consider it a mostly successful play. Plus, the entertainment value doesn't drop, much on the contrary, it skyrockets to a point where I welcome some of its craziness. The third act boasts tremendous tension and suspense, slightly unexpected developments, and a shocking yet utterly perfect ending that will make most viewers say "karma is a b*tch, right?" It's a quite enlightening story about the real-life guardians who exploit their wards. Blakeson brilliantly educates the audience on the power of bureaucracy, the moral compromises overly ambitious people must make, and how to profit for some means lack of freedom for others.

Marc Canham's score is the technical standout, delivering an electronic soundtrack that I usually don't appreciate that much, but it played the right type of tracks at the perfect moments. From the score alone, the viewer is able to understand the importance of certain scenes, and that's a massive achievement. Doug Emmett's cinematography also allows for a few gorgeous shots with exquisite lighting, but I need to move on to the fantastic performances from the cast. I already approached Pike's performance, and at the time of this review, she's already received a Golden Globe nomination, so I don't need to further compliment her display.

However, I can't let the rest of the cast go away without mentions. Peter Dinklage (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, Avengers: Infinity War) offers one of my favorite performances from his film career with his slightly over-the-top yet intriguing interpretation of a dangerous gangster. Eiza González (Bloodshot, Hobbs & Shaw, Alita: Battle Angel) is also pretty good as Fran, Marla's lover, and her chemistry with Pike is on-point. Their sparse yet impactful emotional moments are quite compelling. Dianne Wiest is a total badass as Jennifer Peterson, a not-that-innocent old lady, and finally, a shoutout to Chris Messina (Birds of Prey), who hands his charm as an attention-grabbing lawyer.

I Care a Lot is one of the best Netflix movies this year has offered so far. Boasting an intriguing premise, J Blakeson brilliantly expands his idea through an enlightening screenplay that tackles the sometimes cunning guardian-ward relationship in real-life. Packed with clever analogies to real-life capitalism, Blakeson transmits impactful messages about the power of authority, excessive ambition, and the moral compromises one makes to gain wealth and success at the cost of other people's freedom. Rosamund Pike impeccably leads a film that starts as a realistic take on the process of acquiring and profiting from a new "victim" and then evolves into an absolutely crazy second half of absurd outcomes. This ridiculous development does get a bit too irrational, but its purposeful objective of demonstrating capitalists' immorally ruthless behavior regarding competition is undoubtedly accomplished. Outstanding performances across the board and a surprisingly effective electronic score only make this movie better. I couldn't recommend it more.

Rating: A-
Like  -  Dislike  -  0
Please use spoiler tags:[spoiler] text [/spoiler]
Back to Top