Tag Archives: Comedy

Booksmart (2019): Going Out With a Bang

Some people live by the motto “Work hard, play hard”, others just work hard. Amy (Kaitlyn Dever; Short Term 12) and Molly (Beanie Feldstein; Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising) are in the latter group. The two girls spent their time in high school ignoring their social lives in order to get the stellar grades and extracurricular activities needed to get admission into a good college. They’re perfectly fine with their choices until Molly realizes that the popular kids she has looked down on also got into great schools which, causing a mini-meltdown. Not wanting to have gone through high school without ever breaking any rules, the two young women decide they are going to crash a graduation party on their last night of school.

Booksmart has been labeled by some as “the female Superbad”, but that comparison sells the film short. It does feature two best friends trying to go to a party at the end of their high school career, but where Superbad frequently relied on crass humor, Booksmart uses its deep bench of entertaining characters. That’s not to say the film doesn’t have its fair share of vulgarity, it certainly does, but rather it has more cards in its deck to use.

The film is carried by the exceptional chemistry of its leads. Amy and Molly have the natural back-and-forth of friends that have been inseparable for years. The way they finish each other’s sentences and have routines they play through, like giving each other effusive praise on their outfits, overflows with the effortless comfort of best friends.

Molly and Amy have the bevy of inside jokes that only best friends would.

Like any story that takes place in a high school, Booksmart deals with familiar tropes. There are jocks, popular kids, theater kids, and more, but the members of each clique are done with hilarious heart. The supporting cast is uniformly amazing with a rotating ensemble of high schoolers that make their way in and out of the movie. They never feel like characters that exist only to deliver a single line. The way they come in and out of the girls path feels organic, like they are living their own story just off screen. Special standouts are Gigi (Billie Lourd; Star Wars: The Last Jedi), an unhinged young woman who seems to pop up everywhere, and the overly dramatic theater kids that deliver every line with the flamboyant affect of a self-proclaimed thespian.

In her first outing as director, Olivia Wilde turns in strong work. Each of the film’s settings, from the school to the multiple parties, is authentically chaotic like any room filled with rambunctious teens would be. She controls the chaos onscreen and provides impressive visuals given the simple locations. Her greatest asset is her mastery of comedic timing. She knows when to cross-cut between conflicting scenes to contrast the insanity of a party and when to engage in the many extended takes to emphasize escalating action. This leads to a film that is consistently funny. Booksmart is one of the few films that can boast that every character with spoken dialogue will make you laugh, often several times. Wilde’s skill at directing comedy and the genuine affection of the central friendship make Booksmart an hilarious coming-of-age story.

4/5 stars.

The Beach Bum (2019): Hippie Wonderland

Returning to a drug and alcohol fueled Florida, Harmony Korine (Spring Breakers) teams up with Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club) for a tour through burnout country. McConaughey plays Moondog, an acclaimed poet and stoner that drifts through the Florida Keys enjoying every moment he can. His wife Minnie (Isla Fisher; Nocturnal Animals) lives separately in a mansion and spends time with their mutual friend Lingerie (Snoop Dogg), a rapper. There is even less of a plot here than in Spring Breakers. Moondog doesn’t have a clear motivation beyond enjoying himself. He scrounges for money as he moves from party to party without a care in his mind. He’s an easygoing, worry-free hippie.

Somehow, things just work out for him. He doesn’t have a rigorous writing schedule, but the words come out as needed. He doesn’t usually have a lot of money on him, but he makes friends and ends up with whatever he needs, be it drugs, women, or accommodations.

McConaughey sells all of this with his breezy attitude. It’s like his character from Dazed and Confused spent the next 20 years doing drugs with free-spirited hippies and adopted the lifestyle. As his wife states, “Moondog is from another dimension”. His mindset is one of a kind and completely detached from anything resembling reality. Some may have little patience for a character whose actions can be considered irresponsible, but McConaughey’s performance makes Moondog seem more like a harmless loafer than someone who needs to grow up. The one inconsistency is that the characters keep describing him as a world-renowned, award-winning poet which is hard to reconcile with his lifestyle. The few times he recites poetry are mostly him repeating the same short, asinine verse that is apparently applause worthy.

McConaughey and Snoop Dogg make a surprisingly good duo.

The film, like its main character, lacks a clear direction. The narrative is more of a series of encounters that appear to be sequential, but don’t actually need to be. Korine doesn’t seem interested in telling a cohesive story. He loves the character he has created in Moondog and wants to follow him through a world of nonstop pleasure. Together with cinematographer Benoît Debie, he shoots his film with two visual palettes: sun-drenched outdoors and neon pinks and yellow-greens similar to their work in Spring Breakers. The visuals give the film the feel of an endless summer vacation. One without purpose or consequence.

Yet, any issues are of little importance. It’s hard to stay mad at someone who shows nothing but childish joy. At one point, Moondog finds out that Lingerie has been having an affair with his wife for years while he was away from home, but he barely reacts. He shrugs it off as another part of an unknowable, uncontrollable world that is never worth taking too seriously. This notion permeates the film and makes it difficult to be bothered by any of its flaws. At its best, The Beach Bum is a silly celebration of ignoring everyday struggles and enjoying yourself in every moment, but even at its worst it’s a harmless, carefree, and meandering trip through a hippie wonderland.

3/5 stars.

Fighting with My Family (2019): Cheeky Humor and Genuine Heart

Based on a documentary, Fighting with My Family is the story of how WWE Diva Paige entered professional wrestling and the upbringing that led to her career. Paige Knight (Florence Pugh; Lady Macbeth) comes from a very strange family. Her parents, played by Lena Headey (Game of Thrones) and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz), are wrestlers and run their own independent wrestling association using their own children and any other interested parties in the ring. Paige has grown up dreaming of becoming a professional wrestler and gets an opportunity to make that dream a reality when the WWE comes to town looking for recruits.  

Nearly unrecognizable in her role, Florence Pugh is terrific. She plays Paige as a sharp-witted, hard-working but believably insecure woman who is coming dangerously close to the future she and her family have always dreamed of. The role is a marked departure from the period pieces Pugh has become known for. Her goth-like, foul-mouthed Paige is the epitome of a rebellious outsider as she visibly clashes with the former models and cheerleaders that make up the rest of her fellow recruits. At times, she can be overly hostile to her peers, but the unfriendly behavior is quickly revealed as a defense mechanism for her own self-doubt. Pugh is able to balance the tough exterior and uncertain thoughts naturally, making Paige the irreverent, but relatable lead needed to carry the film.

The Knight family’s attitude is hilarious, especially when they come into contact with normal people.

Director Stephen Merchant’s writing adds warmth and humor to the predictable plot. The narrative follows what is expected of a sports biopic with the necessary small-time beginnings, personal and professional struggles, and an expected outcome but with plenty of laughs along the way. Much of the humor comes from the flippant attitude of the Knight family. They wholesale reject anything outside of their one true cause with little awareness or regard for societal norms. Merchant subtly uses this comical level of devotion to add heart to the film. Yes, the idea of a family dedicating themselves to their little attended, barely sustainable wrestling show is ridiculous, but the sport is inextricably tied to their identity and familial bonds. Wrestling is what unites and connects them in a way that goes beyond pastimes or hobbies. Wrestling is a religion to the Knight family and their sincere commitment creates both the absurdity and genuine heart that bring life to the film.

It might be blatant advertising for the WWE, but it’s impossible to deny its effectiveness. No aspect of the film feels cold or designed by a brand strategy team. Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson makes a cameo and spends his brief screen time grinning with pride, revealing the film for what it truly is: a passion project. With a strong supporting cast like Headey and Frost, the film has talent to spare and their performances take this story based on a sport that many look down upon and make it universal, even to those who dislike wrestling. Fighting with My Family becomes about more than athletic achievement. It’s about family, dreams, and the dedication it takes to achieve them, all packaged in a thick wrapping of hilariously crass, cheeky attitude.

4/5 stars.

The Favourite (2018): Scheming for Favo(u)r

In the early 1700s, while Britain is at war with France, Queen Anne (Olivia Colman; Tyrannosaur) has health issues and only a passive interest in actually ruling the nation. Her close companion and advisor Sarah (Rachel Weisz; The Lobster) manages her affairs until their relationship is interrupted by Sarah’s cousin Abigail (Emma Stone; La La Land) who, while acting as Sarah’s attendant, gains favor and influence with the Queen. Alongside their personal rivalry is a larger political struggle over the direction of the current war with party leaders trying to use Abigail and Sarah’s positions to advance their own causes.

Director Yorgos Lanthimos (The Lobster) nails the look of the film. Shot on location in large estates or palaces in England, the high ceilings and lavish interiors make the Queen’s existence feel both opulent and oppressive. The director again uses wide, almost fisheye, lenses that slightly distort the environment and, doing the inverse of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, place the camera at low heights, emphasizing how small even royalty feel in the cavernous setting. It isn’t pure extravagance though. Lanthimos never lets the audience forget the grimy living that supports the upper class with Abigail’s story. She falls into mud, scrubs floors, and sleeps in the uncomfortably crowded servant’s quarters. Her initial situation is unsavory to say the least, but is also casually dismissed by Sarah while she simultaneously reprimands everyone for the slightest error in the Queen’s care. The extensive period detail creates an unmistakable class divide and fuel for Abigail’s ambitions.

The cinematography makes the royal estate an imposing setting.

It is a joy to watch Abigail and Sarah plot against each other. Both prove themselves to be master manipulators of the Queen and know how to manage the competing political parties. Sarah starts the film with near complete control of the Queen, telling her what she can and cannot do and often speaking in her place for important political meetings, yet Abigail is able to pry open an opportunity to reach the Queen. While Sarah acts as an almost matriarchal authoritarian, Abigail takes a softer, kind approach to win the Queen’s affections. Stone and Weisz masterfully convey the intellect and determination needed to continually surprise and outmaneuver each other. The moments where they spend time together with the Queen can lead to hilarious expressions when the women are forced to act cordial despite their thinly veiled contempt.

The director’s trademark delivery and style are still present but don’t meld as well with the writing. Characters speak in Lanthimos’ ultra-deadpan, unemotional delivery that continues to distinguish his works from any other filmmaker. The manner of speech often results in unexpected humor when characters read what should be impassioned speech with cold distance, but the dialogue seems less suited to this approach that his prior releases. The Favourite is the first film Lanthimos has directed that wasn’t written by him and his co-writer Efthymis Filippou and this may be why his vision feels less effective. There are fewer lines that take advantage of this diction which reduces the frequency of laughs. The chess-like scheming is exciting to watch unfold, but the script doesn’t take full advantage of Lanthimos’ signature acting style resulting less humor than desired

3/5 stars.

Non-Fiction (2018): Comedy for Literary Intellectuals

Olivier Assayas (Personal Shopper) has made a genre shift with his newest film. Instead of deep dramas, Non-Fiction is a comedy. The film involves four main characters: a book publisher (Guillaume Canet) and his actor wife (Juliette Binoche; Caché) and a writer (Vincent Macaigne) and his wife who works in political campaigns (Nora Hamzawi). Each has their own, often interrelated, mini-crises happening, both personal and professional, and they provide the background to the film’s main focus: conversations between educated and opinionated people.

Compared to Assayas’s recent work, Non-Fiction has surprisingly poor visuals. No one expects a comedy to be visually arresting, but the lackluster images are extremely noticeable since Assayas’s past two films were well shot. Part of the problem may be that his previous two works were shot on 35mm film while Non-Fiction appears to be shot digitally and likely has a lower production budget. Digital cinematography has to potential to be gorgeous but many scenes here suffer from blatant visual flaws. An early lunch scene has noticeable digital noise with blue dots speckled in darker regions of the image. Other scenes are outdoors and are completely blown out. It doesn’t help that the film’s sequences typically revolve around sitting at a table. The many conversations are filmed with very rudimentary shot reverse shots and only the occasional handheld camera circling the cast’s dining table to mix things up. They don’t ruin the film, but the poor lighting and cinematography is often distracting.

Hamzawi’s pragmatism is charming and hilarious.

The comedy can be uninvolving at first, but it grows on you. The jokes are subtle and come fast and furious to the point that they are easily missable, especially early on. Then, because the of the film’s literary focus, the comedy feels insular and pretentious, like a bunch of writers and publishers arguing theory with little practical purpose, but eventually this subsides. As the characters are developed, their histories are exposed and we see the fragility beneath their grand debates. All of the performances are strong, but Hamzawi emerges as the breakout. In contrast to her husband, she is practical, direct, and efficient. When her husband tells her that his book has been rejected by his longtime publisher she responds “What do you want me to do? Cry?” Her blunt responses are hilarious and the fortitude of her character is incredibly endearing. Even the other, more flawed characters have depth that drives their actions and the comedy.

Overall, this is a very French film. The majority of the movie is spent with characters eating, drinking, and, most of all, talking. People debate literature, technology, and several jokes rely on literary or film knowledge. Assayas prevents this from becoming haughty by subtly undercutting potential intellectual superiority. When esoteric references are made, it is implied that the character hasn’t actually read or seen the title they namedrop. Hypocrisy brings these bourgeois people back down to earth. The humor isn’t strikingly original or uproariously funny, but the film keeps maintains a healthy rhythm of laughs and even uses personal failings for brief moments of introspection. It’s a lighter work than his previous films, but Non-Fiction is still an enjoyable comedy for fans of talkative movies.

3/5 stars.

The Sisters Brothers (2018): Meandering Western

The Sister’s Brothers is the first American film made by acclaimed French director Jacques Audiard and is, sadly, a disappointing fumble. Eli (John C. Reilly; Step Brothers) and Charlie Sisters (Joaquin Phoenix; Her) are hitmen in the wild west known for their deadly skill. They are tasked with finding a detective traveling with a chemist (Jake Gyllenhaal and Riz Ahmed; Nightcrawler)who has developed a concoction that locates gold deposits in riverbeds.

Audiard is a strange choice for this material. His most well-known works like A Prophet or the Palm D’or winning Dheepan are known for raw realism in difficult situations like entering prison or being an extremely poor immigrant in a new country. There are moments in this film where his eye for adversity comes through. When the abrasive formula is used in water, Audiard’s camera lingers on the scars left on the legs of the main characters and hints at an alternative tone the director could have taken.

In many ways, the western genre should have been ideal for Audiard’s sensibilities. The somewhat romanticized depictions of this period emphasize the freedom of life on the frontier, but gloss over its difficulties. A film focused on the daily struggle against the harsh wilderness and banditry would have been a perfect match for his skillset. Instead, the partially comedic narrative feels out of place.

Phoenix and Reilly were not the right choices to play the brothers.

The problem begins with the casting. As the two brothers, Reilly and Phoenix bring too much comedy to the roles. The characters are written as a low level hustler (Phoenix) and a big, dim-witted, but well-meaning follower, essentially a twist on Lennie Small and George Milton from Of Mice and Men. The film is cut to use Reilly’s character and the brothers’ frequent squabbles for laughs, but this actively clashes with Audiard’s attention to detail. Phoenix relies on what has become his standard affect (the tilted head, crooked smile, and belabored delivery) which ranges from too serious to too playful for the situations at hand and Reilly’s history as a comedian makes him incongruous in the setting. The brothers, as portrayed by Phoenix and Reilly, would have been right at home in Seth MacFarlane’s A Million Ways to Die in the West. They are caricatures that don’t belong in a serious film.

The script is a tonal mess. Written by Audiard and his frequent co-author Thomas Bidegain (A Prophet), it tries, unsuccessfully, to walk the line between humor and harsh realism and does so without a driving force to the plot. Their initial goal of finding the detective and chemist falls by the wayside partway through and no real replacement ever appears. As a black comedy, the lack of a plot direction would not be a major detriment. Even great comedies often have bare plots as use them as little more than an excuse for additional gags. But because Audiard has created an authentic setting, their purpose is noticeably absent and it makes the two hour film feel much longer. It’s unfortunate that the beautifully realized detail is squandered by the script, miscast leads, and conflicted direction. The Sisters Brothers is ultimately a set of ill-suited components forming an unsuccessful dark comedy and a meandering western.

2/5 stars.

Support the Girls (2018): Affectionate Comedy

A Hooters-esque sports bar somewhere in Texas is an unusual setting for a film, but that’s to be expected from director Andrew Bujalski. His 2013 film Computer Chess followed attendees at a programming conference in 1980 and was shot entirely with cameras from the era in black and white so, comparatively, Support the Girls is significantly more accessible. Regina Hall (Girls Trip) plays Lisa, the general manager in charge of a lineup of young women while dealing with a host of her own issues. As one of the creators of the mumblecore film movement, Bujalski continues his interest in sympathetic looks into the lives of ordinary people filled with scripted dialogue so natural that it sometimes feels improvised.

Bujalski’s eccentric characters are brought to life by a wonderful cast. At the center of the film, Hall plays Lisa as the den mother of her bar. She refers to each of the young women as her family and acts on those words as she goes far beyond her manager-employee relationship to help them in their personal lives. She does this to her own detriment when the bar’s owner tries to enforce business-only behaviors. Her altruism and self-sacrifice, even as she deals with personal problems, is impossible not to love. Hall’s performance is warm, sensitive, and gentle as she drives home Lisa’s overwhelming compassion for others. Haley Lu Richardson (Columbus) also deserves praise for her work as Maci, Lisa’s top employee. Her Maci is perky beyond belief but without becoming annoying. As a character says, she’s “an angel sent from Heaven to show the rest of us what a good attitude looks like”. Her genuine enthusiasm and “can do” mindset is infectious and the connection between her, Lisa, and the rest of the staff is irresistible.

Hall and Richardson are amazing together.

At times the film feels like it may have been better suited to the small screen and that’s not a knock against the movie. Bujalski’s affectionate direction is strong but his characters and setting are so well drawn that it’s a shame we only get to spend 90 minutes with them. People normally talk about world building when it comes to sci-fi and fantasy movies, but this film is a great example for others to follow. Bujalski constantly includes subtle hints about other crises going on in the lives of the characters. Lisa’s relationship with her husband, Maci’s new boyfriend, and the plethora of other subplots at the fringes of this slice-of-life story would be perfect material for seasons of a television show. Bujalski has created an honest, recognizable world filled with relatable characters, each with their own stories waiting to be told. It’s a testament to the film’s quality that its biggest flaw is that we’re left wishing we could have spent more time with its loveable characters.

4/5 stars.

BlacKkKlansman (2018): All Power to All the People

Who better to go undercover in the KKK then a black cop? As ridiculous as it seems (resist the urge to reference the famous Dave Chapelle sketch), BlacKkKlansman is based on the true story of the first black cop in Colorado Springs and his infiltration of the local KKK chapter. Ron Stallworth (John David Washington; Ballers) plays a rookie cop who responds to an ad for the KKK in the newspaper, posing as a racist white man, but mistakenly gives out his real name. He continues his conversations on the phone and uses a white peer (Adam Driver; Paterson) to attend meetings in person to investigate their potentially violent plans. As director Spike Lee (Chi-Raq) notes in the opening titles “dis joint based upon some fo’ real, fo’ real shi*t”.

In his first leading role, Washington’s performance leaves room for improvement. He is at his best when on the phone with klansmen and directing the investigation. In these moments, he takes an active role in the film and shows his character’s personal passion for this particular job. However, throughout most of the runtime, his performance is strangely distanced. In many scenes that should call for a strong emotions, he has a blank, almost confused look on his face. His wide-eyed expression may be meant to convey his lack of experience as a police officer, but the unintended effect is that is reduces his agency within the story. It’s a shame that a character who takes such a daring leap is attached to a performance that doesn’t do his courage justice.

This deer in the headlights look comprises too much of Washington’s acting.

The 70s setting provides plenty of material for Lee to pump up the film’s style. The cast, particularly the black leads, are shown in bold outfits with bright colors, bell bottoms, paisley shirts, and with plenty of facial hair to go around. He also taps into the Black Power movement of the time and contrasts it with the KKK’s white supremacy. While the klansmen shout derogatory screed and exclusive benedictions like “God bless White America”, the Black Power leaders decry “All power to all the people”. In one of the film’s most powerful moments Lee juxtaposes the Klan’s initiation ritual and celebration with a Black Power meeting where a character recounts a case of sickening injustice and cruelty. The film’s greatest triumph is how it contextualizes the Black Power movement (and other equality initiatives), often miscast as radical or extremist, as striving for standard, humane treatment of all individuals in the face of the Klan’s ignorance, prejudice, and fearmongering.

Spike Lee’s films are inextricable from his personal politics and with BlacKkKlansman it feels like he has finally found the story where his message and movie are complimentary. His talents as a director are indisputable but too often his political voice has been problematic, inconsistent, or unsuited to the story at hand. This was apparent in Chi-Raq where he sincerely believed his ideas about gang violence and guns were going to cause social change, but muddled his message with lowbrow humor and precarious implications about gender roles. With his new film, Lee’s favorite topic of race relations in America is his, and his characters’, center focus. The script weaves in enough language mimicking contemporary politics that the film’s story feels relevant. This is sometimes done to comedic effect with the striking similarities between the KKK’s hateful rhetoric and modern day campaign slogans but Lee, never one for subtlety,  doesn’t hold back any punches. When it seems like he will resign himself to parallels and allegory, Lee comes out in force and makes his points explicit. As always, Lee isn’t just releasing a movie, he’s making a statement – and a loud one at that. His style and commentary on the present environment fill the story with enough panache and thematic contrasts to create one of his most effective films ever.

4/5 stars.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream (2018): Shakespeare in LA

Shakespeare adaptations seem to be a constant in modern film, whether they’re faithful to the original story like Justin Kurzel’s Macbeth or radical refreshes like Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet. Director Casey Wilder Mott’s debut feature is closer to the latter, but without the excess of style. Mott brings the story to Los Angeles with some noteworthy updates. As in the original text, there are multiple parallel storylines with the main thread following two women, Hermia (Rachel Leigh Cook; She’s All That) and Helena (Lily Rabe; Miss Stevens), as they leave the city with their lovers only to have their relationships interfered with by the fairy Puck and the machinations of the fairy king and queen Oberon and Titania. Alongside these stories is a group of performers trying to put on a show for an upcoming wedding.

The decision to transport the setting from ancient Athens to modern day Los Angeles brings a whole new culture to the story. The young aristocrats are now millennials doing everything expected of their demographic. It will never be normal to see Shakespeare communicated using emojis but the incongruity is entertaining enough. There also some California-specific transformations with the mischievous fairy Puck becoming a surfer hippie and Titania and Oberon acting like some sort of drug-using cultists. There are even visual callbacks to millennial humor including one staging that references a frequently lampooned music video. Adapting Shakespeare is difficult because of the inherent disconnect any modern viewer has to the manner of speech, but Mott’s modern context brings the source material to a comparatively digestible level.

The Titania and Oberon scenes are the strangest and most enjoyable parts of the adaptation.

The play’s multiple storylines are not adapted at the same level of quality. The story of Hermia and Helena and their mercurial lovers is handled well with the confusion of Puck’s misplaced love spells leading to plenty of laughs. The feuding between Titania and Oberon is the most bizarre adaptation with their characters portrayed closer to a drug-addicted couple rather than the royalty of the original text, but the unexpected change is a welcome one. Oberon in particular is devilish in his expressions and his desire to embarrass his partner. It’s the play-within-a-play that struggles to be relevant. Because of the LA setting, this storyline is now an (amateur) film-within-the-film being made by students. The actors here are obnoxious and the attempted parody of film school productions is less satire and more an example of a bad student film. The overacted performances are groan-inducing and the intended payoff of showing their completed short falls completely flat, producing no laughs. Anytime the film cuts back to this story it muddles the pacing of the other interesting plotlines.

Mott’s take on the classic play is unlikely to change anyone’s feelings towards the work or Shakespeare in general. The flowery dialogue, while well-delivered by the majority of the cast, will still be too much for most to follow. However, it is noteworthy how naturally many of the actors are able to express the elaborate lines. Rather than shouting proclamations like most stage productions would, the cast uses their normal speaking voices which helps make the writing more familiar and approachable. Mott doesn’t change the core of the stories enough to entice new converts, but his modern context will be refreshing for existing fans.

3/5 stars.

Sorry to Bother You (2018): The Crazy We Need

If you wanted a wild and provocative take on a range of today’s issues, musician turned director Boots Riley has something for you. Struggling for money in Oakland, California, Cassius “Cash” Green (Lakeith Stanfield; Get Out) finds a job as a telemarketer. After a rough start, he gets the advice to use his “white voice” to rack up more sales. This leads to phenomenal success and he gets promoted to being a “power caller” with significantly higher pay. The change in his social status leads to conflict with his friends and family and the continued success forces him into contact with the CEO of a morally questionable company (Armie Hammer; The Social Network).

The miraculous nature of Sorry to Bother You is the smorgasbord of wide-ranging, serious topics it somehow addresses, all in its typically radical style. There are almost too many to detail here and their abundance should make the film feel unfocused, but it doesn’t. Instead, these issues are presented, and addressed, as they come up in daily life. They appear in one moment and disappear the next as another issue comes into view. This casual nature is reflective of Cash’s own life. He is faced with countless issues every day due to his station in life and can only deal with them as needed before being faced with another.

The film is littered with controversial topics and addresses each one with panache.

The cast is up to challenge of Riley’s eccentric world with Stanfield and Hammer leading the team. Cash begins the film jaded by a limited life with a chip on his shoulder as he walks into the room. Initially, his defensive attitude can be grating, but during his rapid ascent Stanfield gives Cash the right blend of awe and eventually disgust at the decadence of the ultra-rich. And  when it comes to playing the ultra-rich, Hammer is perfectly cast as the head of a company that offers minimal food and lodging in exchange for a lifetime of servitude. He reeks of entitled, upper-class privilege and is the epitome of a millennial WASP. Although his actions may seem welcoming to Cash, his sinister motivation is cold, corporate greed and Hammer brings credibility even when his character’s ideas become outrageous.

There are a lot of labels that could be used to describe Riley’s take on the amalgamation of issues presented. His style is at times surrealist, satirical, and even farcical just to name a few, yet he manages to maintain a consistent perspective amidst the shifting tones. The through line in his style is an anarchic spirit. No matter how he does it, Riley is interested in assaulting the accepted norms of daily life and exposing them for their true perversion. Where a director like David Lynch (Blue Velvet) creates uncannily similar worlds to recast the normal as abnormal, Riley instead amplifies existing aspects to the extreme. The suppression of racial identity is shown as total conversion to the majority through Cash’s nasally Caucasian impression, the stupidity of mass entertainment is represented in a show based solely on people being physically abused, and the impact of internet meme culture is shown through a 10 second clip creating a widespread consumer products line. Just when it seems Riley has exhausted his sources, the third act introduces an element that takes the dehumanization of the working class to an absolutely bonkers level. Yet, within the film’s chambers of oddities, these outlandish details are acceptable and double as an indictment of our modern society. Riley takes an irreverent swing at today’s issues that, in an increasingly strange and unequal world, is just the kind of crazy we need.

4/5 stars.