Category Archives: Recent Reviews

I’m Thinking of Ending Things (2020): Introspective, Eccentric, and Thought-provoking

It’s been 10 years since the last live action feature from Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and his newest film won’t disappoint fans of his particular style. I’m Thinking of Ending Things, based on a novel by Iain Reid, follows a young woman (Jessie Buckley; Wild Rose) and her boyfriend Jake (Jesse Plemons; Game Night) as they drive up to meet his parents for the first time.

The film, like the book and most of Kaufman’s works, is heavy on introspection. During the drive we frequently hear Buckley’s voiceovers questioning her relationship. Although they’re initially presented as an idyllic couple, her first remarks (the film’s title) suggests otherwise. In the midst of taking the next step forward with Jake, she is actually considering breaking up with him and their conversations abstractly reference this.

It’s these protracted dialogues that will lose viewers. Some may find the seemingly unrelated and extended tangents exhausting. They are relevant to the main plot but, in the moment, they can drag on as the couple make obscure references to topics like literature, recitations of poetry, film criticism, and even the musical Oklahoma! which plays a more crucial role than expected. Within these conversations are subtle hints towards the film’s nature and the mindset of its characters and Kaufman deserves credit for his ability to convey information to the viewer without forced exposition.

Jake’s parents try to be welcoming, but have a concerning demeanor.

Compared to his first film (Synecdoche, New York), Kaufman has significantly upgraded his visual flair. The film is shot entirely in a 4:3 aspect ratio, likely intended to convey the mental claustrophobia experienced by the lead, and features a distinctive, eerie aesthetic. The drive takes place during a blizzard and heavy snowfall is almost always in the frame furthering the film’s constrictive feeling  as if the characters are snowed in without a way to escape their current situations. Jake’s family home, the main interior location, is an old farmhouse that has a weathered and unsettling beauty. The wooden floors are worn, the furnishings are outdated, and the wallpaper features bold colors and patterns that manage to be rustic and cozy while still communicating unease due to their sickly shades of green and blue.

Throughout the film, and especially with Jake’s parents, supporting characters have alarmingly strange behavior. Jake’s unhinged mother and father are borderline deranged while trying to exchange pleasantries with their son’s new girlfriend and appear to change physically and mentally during their dinner. At times it even seems like the film’s genre is pivoting towards horror which deliberately deprives the viewer of comfort and certainty and keeps the narrative direction inscrutable for most of its runtime.

As the story approaches its conclusion, Kaufman veers away from the source material. It may be unsurprising coming from the man who wrote Adaptation, but the film takes the book’s psychological thriller narrative and expands it into a self-reflexive and surreal story about longing, loneliness, and fantasy. The ending may again lose some viewers but as perplexing as it initially is, the tonal shift leads to a much more thought-provoking destination than a straightforward translation of the novel would have. It better fits the medium, adds meaning to the alarming eccentricities that preceded it, and gives the viewer reasons to reexamine the film’s expertly layered narrative.

4/5 stars.

Extraction (2020): Action Without Interest

He may be a star in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but Chris Hemsworth (Thor) has had mixed results outside of it. Extraction is his chance to prove himself as a true action lead. He plays Tyler Rake, a mercenary hired to extract a kidnapped gang leader’s  son from Dhaka, Bangladesh. He is supported by his handler Golshifteh Farahani (About Elly) and faces enormous obstacles as the city’s police are under the control of a rival crime lord. To his credit, Hemsworth has a believable physicality as he fights through dozens of goons. His performance, as usual, shows few emotions. This is partly due to how his character is written, but part of it is also his own limited acting ability.

The director, Sam Hargrave, knows his action. This may be his first film, but he comes from the same background as other stuntmen-turned-directors like David Leitch and Chad Stahelski (John Wick) and is best known for his work as stunt coordinator on the latest Avengers movies for directors Anthony and Joe Russo, who also produced this movie. Because of this pedigree, it’s tempting to describe the style of action as John Wick in Bangladesh, but Hargrave seems directly inspired by the work of Gareth Evans in The Raid series. Instead of the comparatively steady camerawork from John Wick,he uses Evans’s more unstable camera and accentuates it to mixed results. The action is typically in clear view, but the constantly wavering camera can be distracting rather than immersive. In its worst moments, the cinematography is even a bit nauseating.

The relationship between Rake and the boy isn’t effective enough to ground the movie.

Shakiness aside, there are still some great set pieces. Chief among them is an extended sequence of Rake attempting to flee Dhaka with the boy. Hargrave stitches together several scenes to create what appears like one unbroken shot. The technical craft is incredibly impressive as the camera seamlessly moves from the street and repeatedly into and out of moving vehicles. This builds the tension of the car chase as the leads weave through the crowded, narrow streets and dodge pursuing vehicles. However, this scene, despite its strong craft, runs too long. The problem is escalation. As the scene continues, the action doesn’t  necessarily surpass what preceded it and the tension begins to deflate.

The film knows what it is, a bare bones action film, and has no greater ambitions. There is very little story beyond the setup. Rake is hinted at having emotional baggage related to a wife or child no longer in his life and lives by himself popping pain pills and drinking heavily. In a line of clumsy dialogue, a character tells the audience that Rake is borderline suicidal. During the course of the rescue, he forms a bond with the boy which is meant to endear him to the audience, but this is mostly unsuccessful. The narrative offers little, if any, emotional investment in the characters or their safety. Without it, even the expertly constructed action wears thin. The movie runs out of steam well before the credits roll and the final shootouts are more tiring than climactic and the intended emotional moments have minimal impact. It deserves praise for its intricate choreography but Extraction never creates enough emotional stakes to hold the audience’s interest.

3/5 stars.

Bad Education (2020): School District Scandals

Public schools are not the typical targets for embezzlement and fraud, but Bad Education proves otherwise. Set in Roslyn, a wealthy area of Long Island, NY, the film follows the district’s popular superintendent Frank Tassone (Hugh Jackman; Logan) as he prepares to submit his next budget to have a skywalk added to the high school. Beside him is his hardened assistant superintendent Pam Gluckin (Allison Janney; I, Tonya) who functions as the business manager, their school board chairman Bob Spicer (Ray Romano; Everybody Loves Raymond) and Rachel Bhargava (Geraldine Viswanathan; Blockers), a student writing an article for the school newspaper that uncovers discrepancies in the school’s accounts.

In some ways, this is a story about people caring about results without examining the process as long as the results were favorable. Tassone was seen as the man that took the high school to new heights. During his tenure, the high school became 4th in the nation with many of its students entering top schools like Harvard leading to an increase in property values and the script takes extra effort to repeatedly emphasize this point. Each individual in the system, directly or indirectly, was benefiting from his work. Families saw their home prices rise and their children received better education with a greater chance at a promising future. As long as that trend continued, Tassone had earned their trust and didn’t warrant further inspection despite some red flags.

Jackman’s performance makes it easy to see Tassone’s appeal.

To make this willful disbelief believable requires a certain type of personality and Hugh Jackman brings that to the character. He is smart, well-dressed, and gregarious. He’s accommodating to everyone from junior staff to board members to parents and students and genuinely cares for their well-being and the overall success of the school. He works long hours and has improved the school in incredible ways and was able to use a cover story to create sympathy in others. Jackman plays Tassone as extremely well-behaved. He wears a ring on his finger and speaks of a young wife who died decades earlier that he still hasn’t moved on from. The tragic backstory makes him an almost saint-like figure to the community and Jackman gives him the easygoing confidence and charisma needed to understand how so many could have been swayed by his behavior.

Director Cory Finley (Thoroughbreds) weaves through the scandal from the perspective of the townspeople or board. We’re first introduced and ingratiated by the duo of Tassone and Gluckin only for the story to gradually reveal their true natures. While the script rightfully places blame on the administrators, it is not as scathing as expected. Finley spends more time humanizing than indicting which is a strange decision. It leaves viewers shocked at the audacity and the enormity of their crimes, but doesn’t create the blood-boiling level of outrage that recent films like Dark Waters or Just Mercy have. It’s a choice that shifts the focus from the crime to the cult of personality that allowed it, but unintentionally diminishes the lasting emotional response to the film, despite its intriguing story.

4/5 stars.

Swallow (2020): Stomach-Churning and Emotional

Swallow is one of the hardest watches in years. It’s not long and there isn’t much gore, but director Carlo Mirabella-Davis knows how to get under the audience’s skin with a simple premise. The film stars Haley Bennett (Hardcore Henry) as Hunter, a housewife recently married to a man from a wealthy family. They live together in the stunning mansion overlooking  a river purchased for them by his parents and she spends her days decorating and cleaning it while he works for the family business. During this time Hunter develops a strange fascination with consuming inedible objects.

Even knowing its topic beforehand will not prepare you for the acts on display. Hunter’s behavior starts small, with a marble, but quickly escalates to disturbing heights. Mirabella-Davis films these scenes in medium shots where Hunter’s body language takes center stage. We see her subtle grimaces, convulsions, and pain as she swallows things no human being was ever meant to eat. These scenes are universally revolting. The director doesn’t rely on extreme close ups or tracking into Hunter’s face to get the point across. Instead, Mirabella-Davis’s static shots eliminate any potential distractions forcing the viewer to unwillingly imagine Hunter’s physical experience and contemplate what emotional  state could have caused someone to behave in this manner. Very little graphic imagery is shown, but Mirabella-Davis frames the actions in an uncomfortably inviting way. Some will find these moments, and therefore the film itself, unwatchable due to their repulsive nature yet this is only a testament their effectiveness.

Hunter examines the objects in unsettling detail before consuming.

Haley Bennett is incredible in the difficult role and carries the film. Hunter has a disturbing, inexplicable habit that could make her too strange for viewers to relate to, but Bennett’s performance highlights her vulnerability. Hunter isn’t crazy, despite her actions. She seems fragile, broken by some aspect of her past, yet good-natured. Hunter wants to be a good wife to make her husband happy, she wants to fit in with her in-laws, and is too timid to do anything to offend them. She gives the impression that she is trying to redeem herself by being what others desire and is an extremely sympathetic character. When her compulsion develops, it is disgusting, but it calls attention to some unknown emotional baggage she carries. Bennett gives her the frailty needed to make Hunter a victim using a terrible coping mechanism rather than a lunatic.

In it’s final act, the film shifts its focus from Hunter’s present to her past. Mirabella-Davis examines Hunter’s background and allows her to confront issues that have been plaguing her. These scenes are heartfelt and tender as Bennett again displays Hunter’s sincere vulnerability. While other filmmakers would have focused on the gross-out elements, Mirabella-Davis takes the more difficult route to understand rather than to judge. He is invested in the characters motivations rather than her actions and creates the same interest in the audience. Swallow is a stomach-churning experience, but one that sympathizes with its subject and delves beyond the obvious to comprehend the compulsion without vilifying its victim.

4/5 stars.

Les Misérables (2020): Injustice and Cyclical Violence

Opening with a moment of unity and closing with something far different, Les Misérables follows three members of an anti-crime brigade in Paris. The film begins with a soccer match that has hundreds of locals shouting in solidarity for their national team but quickly shifts to its focus: the relationship between law enforcement and the citizens they serve. Corporal Ruiz (Damien Bonnard; Dunkirk) transfers into a new police unit in is placed on a team with Chris (Alexis Manenti) and Gwada (Djibril Zonga). He quickly realizes their methods and beliefs are very different from his own as they torment the community and reveal possible illicit connections to criminal groups. The film is not an adaption of Victor Hugo’s famous novel, but it shares many of the same themes of class struggles and takes place in some of the same locations a century and a half later.

Director Ladj Ly’s greatest gift is his control over crowds. The film carries a sense of unease with characters constantly in conflict. The police clash with the residents who clash with their mayor and with other factions. There is an omnipresent civil unrest that threatens to boil over into outright violence at any moment. Simple discussions immediately escalate into screaming matches between divided groups, seconds away from beating each other senseless. The message is one of pent-up frustration. Whether it’s their living conditions, their economic opportunities, or their treatment by the police, the people of this neighborhood have suffered injustice and it has manifested in a level of collective agitation that is a powder keg just looking for a spark.

The street crime unit is always combative in their interactions with the locals.

The film questions, and answers, the police’s role in this chaos. Supposedly the protectors and agents of law and order, the street crime unit sees itself as the only thing keeping the neighborhood peaceful. Ruiz is a newcomer and is appalled by the actions of his teammates. They are self-righteous, unjust, and actively antagonistic. At times, their behavior is almost unbearable as Chris sees a teenager he finds attractive and threatens to molest her under the guise of a drug search. They view themselves as infallible and refuse to apologize for any of their harassment with a character even screaming “I am the law!”. Their beliefs and the realities of their behavior are shown in stark contrast.

Ly sees law enforcement that behaves in this manner as the progenitors of discord and violence in the community. He places special focus on the youth of this area who are tormented at an early age by the police. They learn to run away immediately, even when they have done nothing wrong, because they know that their innocence or guilt don’t factor into how they are treated. They become the true victims as Ly reinforces his thesis. The message can be a bit heavy-handed at times with characters like Chris being an indefensible tyrant, but Ly makes a compelling case for how systemic abuse by authorities can create and perpetuate a cycle of violence and discord in struggling communities.

4/5 stars.

Underwater (2020): Familiar, but Enjoyably Tense

Set on a drilling base at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, Underwater follows a crew of workers when something goes terribly wrong. Norah (Kristen Stewart; Personal Shopper) is a mechanical engineer that narrowly escapes a collapsing wing of the base and informs the others of the catastrophic damage. It appears that an earthquake has destroyed most of their base and its crew. As Norah and the others attempt to escape, they encounter anomalies that suggest they may not be alone on the ocean floor. The film is the first studio feature of William Eubank (Love), an indie sci-fi director, and he carries much of his style into the project.

Eubank is adept at creating tension. It’s immediately obvious that several of the crew are going to die, the questions are who, how, and when and Eubank keeps this guessing game interesting. Some deaths are predictable when characters venture away from the group, but other deaths can be swift and unexpected. There are plenty of jump scares, but few that feel cheap. There are moments of levity used to break the tension with T.J. Miller (Cloverfield) making sarcastic jokes in precarious situations, but these aren’t as annoying as they initially appear. Miller serves as an audience surrogate, pointing out the insurmountable danger they face that films often ignore. His jokes are usually only worth a chuckle, but they’re not to the film’s detriment.

The film’s influences are obvious.

The film boasts impressive visual effects. The sets have the unadorned look of an oil rig rather than a high-tech sterile environment and it adds to the realism, particularly when portions of the base collapse. Eubank uses the same contrasting speed-up / slow-down effect from his earlier films during explosive scenes to capture the power of the blasts and it provides some needed style. There are also interesting designs like the pressurized suits the crew wears to traverse the ocean. The suits could easily be mistaken for mech suits with their intricate, almost modular appearance. The designs of the sea creatures are mostly standard, but their quick movements and glowing eyes are frightening enough. The  best design is revealed towards the end when the film shows it still has a secret up its sleeve and is able to create a unexpected, but truly awe-inducing moment.

While the direction may be strong, it’s impossible to ignore the script’s unoriginality. The film is a cross between Alien, The Abyss, and The Descent with little original plot to add. It has the same blue-collar cast as Alien, the setting of The Abyss, and the creatures and claustrophobia of The Descent. The main crew has little development and the film seems more interested in its set pieces than its characters. Surprisingly, this was a beneficial choice. The lack of character focus allows the film’s strongest features, it’s visuals and direction, to shine. In the few moments when relationships and backstories are emphasized, the cast struggles with the lackluster script and do the film a disservice. It’s story is completely familiar but the film’s tense direction and visual flair are enough to make it an enjoyable ride.

3/5 stars.

Little Women (2019): Sisterhood and Adulthood

The seventh adaptation of the beloved book, Little Women, directed by Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird), is the story of the four daughters of the March household, Jo (Saoirse Ronan; Brooklyn), Meg (Emma Watson; Harry Potter), Amy (Florence Pugh; Lady Macbeth), and Beth (Eliza Scanlen; Sharp Objects). Set during the civil war, each of the girls has their own ambitions, lives, and loves as they learn to become adults together.

Gerwig is able to create the warmth and care of a loving family. The young women are close in age and know each other incredibly well. The argue, tease, and tussle, but the depth of their genuine affection is clear. Even when they are petty, it’s impossible to overlook how much they love each other. They have all the inside jokes and goofy banter of people who have spent their lives together. Their closeness is also shown in their physicality. They walk arm-in-arm and seem to always be on top of each other. When they gather to hear a letter from their father, they sit closely together, locked in a familiar mutual embrace. The ease and comfort they feel around each other is palpable and it makes their bonds of sisterhood immediately believable.

The affection shown between the March sisters is incredibly endearing.

The film repeatedly points out the gender inequality of the time. The girls, Jo in particular, all seem limited by the opportunities available and the expectations of social norms. They want to be independent, but there are precious few ways for women to support themselves. Furthermore, the idea of an independent women is itself controversial. While Gerwig is direct with this message, it isn’t excessive or detrimental to the narrative. The limitations are encountered naturally and, sadly, often feel more relevant to the modern world than we would like. Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada) appears as the unmarried elderly aunt that attempts to conform their behaviors to society. Her acting feels artificial, as usual, but she serves to demonstrate how different the leads are from most women of their time. All the March girls are strong female characters, but Gerwig deserves special praise for allowing each to be strong in their own way. Too often media will prescribe a single notion of what a Strong Female CharacterTM­ means to the exclusion of many. The girls here have different desires from fame to companionship to motherhood and each is presented with equal care and respect.

In her second outing as director, Gerwig has once again proven herself a formidable talent. She deftly controls the large cast of characters, often in scenes featuring dozens of performers, and does so while still giving each lead their own personality and enough opportunity to develop. She is a sensitive and empathetic director with affection towards all her characters. They are all imperfect, but flaws are not judged, only accepted as part of being human. Even when characters act impulsively or selfishly, they are still eminently lovable. Gerwig has created a warm, empathetic adaption of a classic story with themes and messages that still resonate today.

4/5 stars.

The Two Popes (2019): Lively Conversation

At his summer residence in the Palace of Castel Gandolfo, Pope Benedict XVI (Anthony Hopkins; The Silence of the Lambs), previously known Joseph Ratzinger before his papacy, and Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce; Brazil) discuss the future of the Catholic church and, most importantly, each other.

For a movie that is mostly old men talking, The Two Popes can be remarkably engaging. The initial meeting of Ratzinger and Bergoglio is an extended repartee where neither appears to be on the same wavelength. Bergoglio is trying to get the Pope’s signature to allow his retirement, but Ratzinger seems intent on changing the topic. Instead he grills Bergoglio on his positions and past actions, pressing on his reasoning and how it compares to the Catholic church’s official stances. These are the film’s strongest sections because the writing allows each person to be seen as a flawed individual, rather than being limited to their position.

The more they interact, the more the actors are able to add to their personalities. Both Hopkins and Pryce are seasoned professionals and while neither is able to fully hide that they are English rather than German or Argentinian, they easily bring out the unique traits of the two men. Pryce makes Bergoglio an impassioned but humble humanitarian who cares more about helping others than upholding dogma. Hopkins shows Ratzinger to be ambitious, but practical. While he wants to keep his position, he is more interested in the continuation and growth of the church and is willing to make personal sacrifices for its sake. Both are more than their titles indicate and the script gives them each personality quirks like favorite hobbies or television shows that add some levity to their characterizations. The roles are rich opportunities for the leads to make the holy leaders human and relatable.

Seeing the men interact like regular people is the most entertaining aspect of the film.

Director Fernando Meirelles (City of God) opts to shoot The Two Popes in a documentary style. As the men converse, Meirelles uses handheld cameras that follow the leads as if trailing a live event. There are zooms, wide shots around corners, and scenes where the camera appears to be behind a bush following the conversation. The visuals are similar to the fly-on-the-wall style in Armando Iannucci’s work (Veep), but without the farce. This creative choice prevents the film from feeling like prestige Oscar-bait and instead makes it a more humble and honest affair.

While the film does portray its subjects positively, it doesn’t make them saints. They are shown having doubts and regrets about themselves and their past actions. They even address major issues like the church’s knowledge and concealment of sexual abuse and the responsibility they have to the victims and their other followers. Several of these scenes involve flashbacks with other actors playing younger versions of the leads but these are the least compelling sections, despite providing additional background on how the men became who they are today. They also occupy a significant portion of the film’s runtime and carry nowhere near the heart and humor of the simple discussions. The significant use of flashbacks undermine the chemistry of the two fantastic leads, but The Two Popes is still a lively, welcome surprise.

3/5 stars.

Marriage Story (2019): The Messiness of Divorce

Inspired in part by his own divorce, Noah Baumbach (Frances Ha) writes and directs the story of an artist couple at the end of their marriage. Charlie (Adam Driver; Paterson) is a play director and Nicole (Scarlett Johansson; Jojo Rabbit) is an actress in New York. They have a young son together, but, due to differences in long-term goals, have decided to divorce. There was no inciting incident, just a gradual diverging that has led to their current situation with no visible hostilities from either party.

While Baumbach gives both parents plenty of attention, he isn’t completely even-handed. It may be due to personal biases or due to Charlie being partly based on Baumbach himself, but the film places more blame on Nicole. Neither lead is a villain here as both husband and wife make mistakes, but Nicole escalates the situation by hiring a vicious divorce attorney named Nora (Laura Dern; Blue Velvet). They had initially agreed to using a mediator to keep lawyers out of the picture, but when Nicole violates that agreement it makes her initially appear like the aggressor. Charlie is served with divorce papers and, without representation of his own, is put in a vulnerable position as Nora threatens to take everything.

Nora is an utterly reprehensible character.

If nothing else, the film will make every viewer hate divorce attorneys. Charlie’s initial lawyer is an older man that gives him circular contradictory advice and seems partially defeated before even starting. When Charlie switches to a high-end option (Ray Liotta; Goodfellas), he is stuck with an effective but overly aggressive lawyer that curses with every breath about how Charlie is damaging his own position. As bad as Liotta’s character is, he is at least upfront with his hostility. Nora is an absolute abomination. Dern, who is normally immensely likable in all her roles, plays Nora as a slimy, two-faced villain that will politely screw you over while brandishing a fake smile. In both cases the lawyers end up costing tens of thousands of dollars to the detriment of the family. One character notes that they’re taking from their son’s college money to pay for legal fees.

After the lawyers become involved, Marriage Story is able to effectively show the emotional strain caused by the divorce. Charlie and Nicole’s divorce is initially completely amicable. They know they need to separate, but there is no bad blood until attorneys start making demands. Both threaten to claim spousal support, something neither originally wanted, and slander each other using inconsequential facts to portray the other as an irresponsible parent. This creates resentment between Charlie and Nicole and results in hurtful screaming matches where long buried thoughts surface as devastating insults. Every part of their arguing feels raw and unfiltered, like pent up frustration rather than dramatic dialogue. The legal maneuvering and the following emotional harm warps their priorities and causes them to fight for minor wins instead of creating the best situation for their family. By showing how Charlie and Nicole’s relationship is upended by the legal process, Baumbach succeeds in making Marriage Story a sensitive and realistic examination of the messiness of divorce.

4/5 stars.

Dark Waters (2019): Corporate Cruelty

A newly promoted partner at a law firm for chemical companies, Robert Bilott (Mark Ruffalo; The Kids Are All Right), is asked by a friend of his grandmother to look into the cows that have died on his farm. Robert, a lawyer that defends chemical companies, has no interest until he visits the site and sees that over a hundred of the livestock have died. The farmer blames the local DuPont plant and as Robert starts to probe further he finds a growing pile of evidence that the company is knowingly dumping a hazardous chemical into the area, risking the health of the town and its people.

Todd Haynes (Far From Heaven) is a strange choice for a director of this material, but he delivers strong results. He is known for anything from biopics featuring Barbie dolls or several actors (of both genders) playing the same character to throwbacks to 50s melodramas. A legal drama is yet another unexpected entry in a filmography that seems to only consist of surprises. As always he gets strong performances from his cast and is able to capture the trust and dependence a small town has on its main employer. DuPont provides jobs to many of the city’s residents and is a central part of their community with buildings and parks named after them. Even when the allegations arise against the company, the people are reluctant to doubt the hand that feeds them.

The numerous loopholes and roadblocks DuPont uses to defend their illicit actions are horrendous and demoralizing.

In many ways, Dark Waters is a more deliberate Erin Brockovich. Like in that film, Robert is fighting against a company for polluting drinking water, but Haynes take a more subtle approach. He focuses on the data gathering, as Robert combs through an entire room full of documents, and the convoluted steps it takes to hold a major corporation accountable. The case spans 20 years and Haynes does an excellent job depicting how draining the constant hurdles and setbacks can be. Ruffalo shows Robert to be increasingly frustrated and almost desperate. He sacrifices other clients, takes pay cuts, ignores his family, and develops health issues due to the stress of case. There is a period of waiting in the trial that is the only point where the drawn out engagement affects the pacing of the film, but even this slowdown appears reflective of the true events.

The film’s main theme is trust. In a frustrated retort, Robert explains that the people in control, governments and corporations, don’t protect people, the people have to protect themselves. The lawyers point out that when the environmental protection agency was first established, it relied on companies to self-report chemicals as hazardous, something they have little incentive to do. They joke about “self-regulation” because they know that companies will prioritize profits over people and even when DuPont is forced to appear in trial, they are able to work with local officials to place regulations that are favorable to them, even though they put people at risk. At its core, Haynes has created an in-depth warning about the dangers of minimal oversight and how corporate cruelty and greed will choose commerce over community if left unchecked.

4/5 stars.