Double Feature Weekend

Riot’s Reviews Double Feature: Sacramento Warfare

Two movies with absolutely nothing in common. I was in a weird mood this weekend and needed one film to wipe the emotional palate clean from the other and I would bet y’all can guess which came first. There’s been no shortage of films lately and I’m lucky to have been able to get to as many as I have. Let’s dive in!

Warfare: A24 is really swinging for the fences with their content and to their major credit (and I’ve said this before) they are setting themselves apart from the pack by fostering a lot of originality. Now, a wartime film isn’t anything new to be sure, but it’s their approach to battle that is setting themselves apart in their new film, Warfare. The story follows a platoon of Navy SEALs as they try to survive a dangerous mission in Iraq. The events portrayed are pulled directly from the stories/memories of the actual men that served on the mission, highlighting the skills, training, and brotherhood that drives America’s soldiers. Leading up to the film’s release, there was quite a bit of mystique surrounding almost everything about this movie. What I did see though, were a few articles/interviews speaking very highly of the amount of real-life training the actors went through before production. My knowledge about combat and weaponry being as limited as it is, I’d venture to say the training paid off in a big way. I often tell people that I struggle emotionally with movies that get too real and holy s*** did Warfare feel real.

While the creators did a good job to introduce the story with some levity (it opens with the platoon joyously watching a 90’s exercise video), from the second that scene ends, the audience spends the rest of the film drowning in the tension of the story. It brings new meaning to “cutting the tension with a knife.” Part of you wonders just how much of the performances are actually acting, because as an audience member, you’re mentally struggling to keep things together as much as the characters are. Everything is exceptionally visceral, especially the audio work. The choice to have a hyper focused mic to catch the breathing of a sniper while he scans the landscape for threats is palpably terrifying. Every moment that you’re waiting for something to happen and then it doesn’t, heightens the intensity and the jump-scare nature of when things pop off. The noise of gunfire and explosions getting cut in and out is almost enough to give the audience PTSD on its own. The story doesn’t highlight a single “hero” of the group (like other wartime movies might), distinctly emphasizing the brotherhood theme and really keeps you on the edge of your seat, anxiously guessing how the events will play out in the end. It’s an incredible film, yet still one I wouldn’t be in a rush to see again. It set my pulse rate so high that my watch alerted me, certainly my own visceral reaction to a brilliantly made film.

Riot’s Review: 9.6/10: I think it’s smart to be reminded about the horrors of war and just how spoiled we are as a majority of people who have never had to see that kind of violence in real life. Stylized violence is absent in Warfare, replaced by the raw, real, and disturbing nature of combat that we should all do everything in our power to avoid.

Sacramento: To friends and online communities, Sacramento quickly started to be referred to as a “Great Value” A Real Pain, or even A Real Pain Lite. There was an odd, observable phenomena in Hollywood for a while where there were “twin” movies being released by separate studios. (ex: Antz and A Bug’s Life, Armageddon and Deep Impact, Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached) I’ve never spent much time diving too deep into why this happened, but when you have a high volume of content being released at the same time, there is bound to be some tightly related ideas. What you inevitably find out about this twin phenomena though, is that one film ends up being superior. (In the examples I gave, I’d argue A Bug’s Life, Armageddon, and Friends With Benefits were significantly better, what y’all think?) Unfortunately for its stars, Sacramento is by far the inferior movie. The script is messy and awkward, failing to establish a character that you’re actually rooting for. The comedic elements get through at moments, but most of the film is cringe-laden and kind of sad, watching these almost 40 year old dudes flail around in their arrested development (see what I did there?). I didn’t find either Glenn (Michael Cera) or Rickey (Michael Angarano) to be likeable in any substantial way. Having both leads be hyper emotional, immaturity-laden wrecks doesn’t allow any contrast; nothing other than a slight charm from both actors to bounce off of.

I understand, it’s not exactly fair to be using another movie as comparison and as far as biases go (being from CA where the film is set) the scenery/settings did nothing for me. I wonder if I would have felt differently had I seen this movie first, but I rather doubt it. The mental “breakdowns” that Cera’s character specifically goes through don’t play as believable or impactful. And once the final conflict of the story presents itself, it’s so non-sensical that it completely takes you out of the story. I didn’t necessarily hate the acting TBH (but if you want to see a great Maya Erskine movie, go stream Plus One) but I have seen each of the main four actors in much better work. I couldn’t get past the awkwardness of the dialogue and couldn’t help but feel every single minute of what should’ve been a very tight hour and thirty five minutes. It was a sad commentary about how the writers view men/masculinity. I’d argue it was another opportunity lost to leave behind the dark/edgy elements and just lean into the comedy, but I am not entirely confident it would’ve been pulled off, the events of the story being what they were.

Riot’s Reviews: 5.5/10: Sacramento is uncomfortable, awkward, and nonsensical, hamstrung a bit by timing but also by its own inability to take its subject matter more seriously.