Movies & TV / Reviews
Intolerance: No More Review
Loading...Intolerance: No More Review
Paulette Patterson– Lucretia
Christina Morrell– Officer Sarah
Helen Kennedy– Kate Hensen
Lizza Monet Morales– Lola
Daniel Chung– JJ
Freddie De Grate– Michael
(check out the rest of the cast here)
Directed by Sergio Guerrero
Screenplay by Jennifer Irons and Sergio Guerrero, based on a story by Sergio Guererro
Distributed by Random Media
Not Rated
Runtime– 80 minutes
https://www.intolerancenomore.com/
Watch it here and buy it on DVD here
Intolerance: No More, directed by Sergio Guerrero, is a well-made, thoroughly engaging new crime drama that tells its story in a nifty way. And what is that nifty way? “Live” footage. Similar to the “found footage” genre in horror, Intolerance: No More is told exclusively through various “live” footage from a multitude of cameras that are operating in a sort of “real time” as the story unfolds. Public and private surveillance cameras, police body cameras, various phones, Go Pro helmet cameras, and internet cameras are all in use throughout the movie. We also see TV and internet broadcasts. This technique gives the movie both an intimacy and an urgency that it likely wouldn’t have been able to achieve if it had been made in a standard, “normal” way. The way the movie wraps itself up is a bit lacking and too on the nose but, on the whole, Intolerance: No More is an exciting examination of how people treat one another. No one comes out of Intolerance: No More unscathed.
Intolerance: No More stars Paulette Patterson as Lucretia, a desperate single mother who, after a deadly encounter with a Los Angeles police officer during a “routine” traffic stop, ends up a wanted woman and the subject of a massive citywide police dragnet. The police, especially Officer Sarah (Christina Morrell), the friend of the killed cop, want Lucretia apprehended immediately. Lucretia claims that what happened to the police officer was an accident and that the cop was being incredibly unprofessional to boot, but she doesn’t know who to turn to for help. Who would believe her story? Lucretia’s friend Nikki (Lauren Elliott) does try to help her, but the police prevent that from happening. On top of the increased police presence everywhere and trying to avoid it, Lucretia is also terrified of missing picking her young son up at school as it’s her day to pick him up and she doesn’t want her ex-husband to use her lateness against her.
Now, while all of that is going on, the local news media starts reporting on what happened, but without the kind of up to the minute information that social media users and producers seem to have access to. Kate Hensen (Helen Kennedy), the lead anchor at a major LA network affiliate, desperately wants to have the most in depth, up close information about the incident but is unable to obtain it. Meanwhile, Lola (Lizza Money Morales), who has her own Facebook live news show, manages to get all of the information Kate wants and seems to have a bigger audience than Kate. And Kate is pissed off about that. Lola is the goddamn internets and Kate is the news. How is she being outdone here?
And so the rest of the movie is Lucretia trying to figure out what to do next (how is she going to avoid the police while picking up her son?), Officer Sarah trying to apprehend Lucretia and avenge the death of her friend, and Kate and Lola trying to get ahead of the unfolding story and get the biggest ratings/likes/views. And while all of that is happening, JJ (Daniel Chung), a motorcycle rider that wants to create his own massive social media presence, has footage from his helmet that someone with deep pockets may want to buy. What is he going to do?
And, really, what is the truth here? What actually happened during that traffic stop? Is Lucretia telling the truth, or is she just a criminal?
There’s an obvious timeliness to Intolerance: No More’s storyline that it probably wouldn’t have it had come out earlier in 2020 or came out in 2019 at some point. At this moment in time, the movie seems to be speaking to ongoing questions about the police, about justice, about social media, and about society in general very loudly. I would suspect that lots of people would say that the movie is a “liberal screed” and that it’s too sympathetic to people who don’t show the police any respect, especially when you find out what actually happened during the traffic stop. I think that interpretation is way too simplistic and that the movie isn’t an actual political screed at all, at least not in the sense damn near everything is framed today. Is the movie sympathetic to Lucretia, the ex-con single Mom that shot a cop? To a degree, yes, but that’s mostly due to the fact that Lucretia is the movie’s main character, we spend the most time with her, and it’s a movie. But I would suggest that the movie’s real “message” is people, in general, are awful.
Well, maybe awful is too strong a word, but if you look at what happens in the movie no one, not even Lucretia the protagonist, is completely innocent. Just about everyone in the movie makes some sort of initial mistake that then grows into an even bigger mistake later on. Absolutely no one is willing to calm down, take a step back, and figure out what really happened. And no one is willing to trust anyone else. Even if someone like Lucretia, who you can understand may have issues with the police due to police harassment/racial profiling, can’t really trust anyone once the traffic incident happens. She can’t go to anyone for help. The cops want her dead and the news media just want to exploit her.
And no one seems to want the actual truth, at least not initially. Everyone already knows what happened and they’re trying to find evidence to enforce whatever the already believe. And then there are people, like JJ, who are involved simply to make a buck. It doesn’t matter what the truth is. All JJ wants to do is get paid. That’s sad.
Lola, at first, comes off as a citizen journalist that wants to get to the truth, but the more time you spend with her the more you realize that all she really wants is views and likes. She’s no different, deep down, than Kate, who just wants ratings and to win (beat the other network affiliates in town).
Officer Sarah desperately wants the dead cop’s body cam footage so she can see what happened. She manages to get that footage through underhanded means (she essentially breaks the law in order to get it before anyone else), but the bodycam footage doesn’t actually show what really happened. It only shows part of what happened. That fact doesn’t matter to Sarah, though. She wants revenge. But then why wouldn’t she? The dead cop was her friend, and, above everything else, she has a tough job, like every cop. She believes in what she does. Unfortunately, the thing she actually believes in isn’t quite as pure and right as she wants to believe.
The closest thing the movie has to a truth teller, or at least someone who is willing to wait to get all of the available information about what happened and then make a final judgement is the chief of police (well, I think it’s the chief of police. It’s an older cop). He actually waits until all of the footage comes in, from every angle, and then he makes a call. What happened isn’t what’s been assumed.
I love the immediacy of the story created by using all of the different cameras and surveillance options. It isn’t being done in real time, but it sure feels like it is. It’s also cool how, when the movie does a flashback, that the flashback is done via some sort of camera. The consistency of the cameras is amazing. It’s also great how all of the performances come off as authentic when you consider the different camera options used. Lola is very animated in front of her internet camera because she wants people to keep watching her Facebook livestream. Kate is a professional journalist while on TV, but backstage she’s completely different (and check out how she acts with JJ, trying to get him to work with her. It isn’t a good idea but she’s willing to do it because she wants the biggest ratings possible). Lucretia has her Uber camera on all of the time, but she never plays to it because she has other stuff to worry about. And Officer Sarah only allows herself to show emotion when she’s alone. She needs to show the public that she’s in control at all times because she wants to maintain her police authority. This is all great stuff.
Now, the last quarter or so of the movie isn’t as engaging as the rest of the movie because it doesn’t trust the audience to understand what it just watched. Having a character explain what’s really going on after everything we just watched doesn’t seem wise. The big speech told to the camera is something the movie doesn’t need. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to have a little of the big speech, but the whole thing just slows things down when, really, the movie should be roaring to its conclusion. I’m also not a fan of the song that plays over the end credits because its message is too on the nose. I don’t need the movie’s message reinforced at the very end during the credits. I know what happened and I know what the movie is about because I just watched it.
Even with that rather lackluster last quarter or so, Intolerance: No More is a worthwhile movie and definitely something you should search out. It’s technically brilliant and surprising at almost every level. “Live” footage is much better than “found” footage and creates a much better and much more engaging movie watching experience. Intolerance: No More is damn good.
See Intolerance: No More. See it, see it, see it. It’s currently on digital and Video On Demand and on DVD.
So what do we have here?
Dead bodies: Maybe 2.
Explosions: None.
Nudity?: None.
Doobage: A woman is upset about something, pay phone hooey, video app hooey, body cam hooey, Go Pro hooey, attempted CPR, everyone is recording everything, an argument, scrolling, mystery, a hilariously profane friend conversation that ends badly, attempted lawyer, unseen footage, attempted interrogation, more mystery, a police car chase that we see via helicopter overhead, a funny “grandma’s house” moment, police evasion, a convergence of sorts, talk of liability, the truth about what actually happened, a really long and unnecessary speech, power cutting, someone gets shot, and a sad video.
Kim Richards?: None.
Gratuitous: “Inspired by Today’s News,” story told via different and various cameras and whatnot, a Facebook Live news cast, a desk with a “Do Not Sit At This Desk” sign on it, a lame pic that makes you smile, TV news hooey, biker hooey, liquor store hooey, the power of social media, police evasion, emojis, and a sad video.
Best lines: “Oh, come on, Manny, I’m just busting your balls!,” “Wait, all of this went down in your car?,” “I know nothing about saving a life,” “Hey! This is not a music video!,” “Hey, you and I need to tango,” “Thank you for being a good citizen, Mr. Chen,” “Who the hell is she talking to?,” “That pig die?,” “Kate, we’re over budget!,” “Can I bum a smoke?,” “Smoking makes you sterile. Did you know that?,” “It’s an African-American woman! Milk it!,” “She’s got no authorization to do that!,” “Wow, this is not a movie, folks, this is real!,” “I want you gone, Kate,” “Now that you’ve been upgraded to a cop killer, what’s your next move?,” “Innocent people do not run,” “There are four million people watching this shit right now,” and “Hold your fire! It’s not a gun! Are you okay?”
