Boots Riley's directorial debut was an wholly original story that bit off way more that it could chew. It was ambitious and original and creative, but the execution lacked style, focus and discipline. At times the film got mildly excruciating to watch as we waited - albeit with some bated breath - for the conclusion which, despite its originality, still ironically felt predictable and unearned. Riley had too many ideas and they were all over the place, and a stricter, more disciplined director could have focused these themes into a biting satire. But instead now, we were left with an original comedy that had potential but just missed the mark.
The screenplay is a gem. It was unexpected and zagged when you would expect a zig. It juggled magical realism with social satire and black comedy, but it never fully explored any of these realms. This ain't Gabriel Garcia Marquez or Haruki Murakami, and neither was it The Death of Stalin or Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Riley's direction just lacked a cohesive tone and structure to really weave all these big ideas and scathing social commentaries. The amateurism really showed.
But then again, the strong original concept helped to maintain the audience's interest. We want to know how it all end.
Lakeith Stanfield was an arresting performer and he definitely held the attention. However, his struggle and internal conflict was less apparent. And this was either the fault of the script or a weakness in the actor's craft, or both. But he made for an interesting protagonist, only if he had been written better we would have understood him better too.
Also David Cross and Stanfield, a great match!
Tessa Thompson was the sole female in this film. Is she a feminist? Or is she the token female to advance the narrative, i.e. the Manic Pixie Dream Girl? I'd lean on the latter. That whole side plot with Steve Yeun was utterly unnecessary and resolved, literally, in seconds.
Speaking of Yeun, he is going to go places. Cannot wait to catch him in Burning.
Armie Hammer was a hoot, hamming it up appropriately.
Sorry to Bother You ran 112 minutes, and perhaps if it was just 10 minutes shorter with a more focused and streamlined vision, it would have been a more thoroughly enjoyable film. But for now, I applaud it for is originality and vision but not its execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment