ShareThis Page

Review: Lackluster 'Gringo' missing crucial story elements

| Thursday, March 8, 2018, 3:27 p.m.

A mild-mannered middle-management stooge gets lost, only to find himself, south of the border, in the mostly middling action-comedy "Gringo," directed by Nash Edgerton, written by Anthony Tambakis and Matthew Stone.

David Oyelowo tests out his comedy chops as Harold, a nice-guy Nigerian immigrant scraping by and scrapping for his slice of the American Dream, which involves an inattentive wife (Thandie Newton), a tiny dog, a mountain of debt and a couple of truly abusive, criminal individuals as bosses. Living the dream.

Harold and his bosses, basic bro Richard (Joel Edgerton) and wolf of Wall Street wannabe Elaine (Charlize Theron) work at a nebulous pharmaceutical company that's secretly in a precarious financial position. Harold makes regular trips to check on the manufacturing in Mexico, and when Richard and Elaine come along, it results in trouble for Harold.

An under-the-table deal with a local drug cartel goes under and Harold becomes the number one target. But suddenly, Harold doesn't want to go home anymore, and thus begins a cycle of Harold faking his own kidnapping, being kidnapped, escaping, being kidnapped again, and so on and so forth.

Question of worth

There's an interesting question of "worth" that circulates around this cycle of kidnapping and negotiation. Harold is dismayed that his company would rather negotiate than pay a full ransom for him, and that they've let their kidnapping insurance lapse.

When Harold continually evades capture, he suddenly accrues more worth because he's scarce. It's a fascinating idea that's explored with far more depth and nuance in the Danish drama "A Hijacking."

Everything about "Gringo," from the storytelling to the comedy to the cinematography is incredibly lackluster. The film is dark and dim, like everything's covered in a layer of dust.

Oyelowo is quite endearing and funny as Harold, but he's given very little to work with. The film just feels like it's missing crucial connecting tissue storywise. The drug that their company manufactures — a cannabis product called Cannabax — isn't explained until halfway through, and we don't even know what it does or why anyone wants it.

Superfluous elements

And as much as "Gringo" is missing parts of the story, there are completely superfluous elements as well. Amanda Seyfried and Harry Treadaway show up as a pair of American tourists — he's smuggling Cannabax out of Mexico and she's his unknowing girlfriend. The only purpose for this subplot seems to be Sunny (Seyfried) befriending Harold for a short while.

"Gringo" feels both interminable and thin, and very low-stakes — how can every single scene be both unnecessary and dull?

"Gringo" bills itself as a dark comedy, because it's very violent (there's almost no regard for human life, just Harold's) and because corporate piranha Elaine says a lot of shockingly horrible things — racist, sexist, ableist, fat-shaming horrible things. Her worldview is the definition of the phrase "punching down."

The writers seem to think this makes her edgy, or tough, or worthy of admiration. If her character had any arc, it might make sense, but she doesn't.

Her abusiveness doesn't tell us anything about her character, but it does tell us everything about these writers. Dark comedy is a difficult needle to thread, and one absolutely necessary quality to do it well is intelligence. But the treatment of Elaine isn't smart at all, just sensationalist and shocking.

This "Gringo" is better off staying underground forever.

Katie Walsh is a Tribune News Service writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me