Synopsis 

C. While our individual scores seem to vary, I think we all seem to have or at least acknowledge the same issues within the movie. Putting certain veteran actors in roles that somehow hinder their performances and should’ve been cameos, some clear logistical issues, and the pairing of a standardized action film with the intense subject matter. While we go more in-depth during our Screener Spotlight on the upcoming Bloodhound Pix podcast, it really feels like depending on how you went into this movie will dictate many of your initial emotions. Being aware of the controversy around the film, having specific political agendas, expecting something more like Gus Van Sant’s Elephant or (on the opposite side of the spectrum) expecting something like Die Hard, many factors have become present.


Again, at the end of the day the movie should stand on its own and it does, everyone and everything work really well to create a tense atmosphere. My issues ultimately boil down to the inconsistencies of tone and struggles with giving each character their own voice within the script. This is something that I’d normally not blame on the screenwriter because of the many filters traditionally associated with getting a script to the screen. However, because of Sonnier’s belief in allowing the director to have complete creative control, it falls on Rankin’s writing. With one more solid draft or a co-writer to do some rewiring, my review would be an entirely different story… but I guess you could say that about most movies.


K.  I agree with my colleagues on the issues raised regarding certain plot holes and inconsistencies within the film.  I think I was less harsh on it because I came in expecting an action film and not a serious take on school shootings or a Thomas Jane-Barbara Crampton vehicle (which needs to exist now), so I overlooked the little details.  Separated from the inevitable controversy regarding its production and distribution companies, and the touchy subject matter, the film works as an action thrill ride, but most viewers will likely not be able to make that separation.  I, however, have been watching lots of Steven Seagal for another podcast venture and between that and 2020, no longer have the mental capacity to navigate these puritanical waters of “controversy”.  I am reduced to a thoughtless husk who just wants to see the big ‘splosions go BOOM on the BIG screen.


J. Serious subject that will be offensive to some but also under the guise of an action/thrill ride plot.  It’s a strange combination.  Oh, yeah and not enough Thomas Jane and Barbara Crampton in scenes together.  That’s the biggest issue I had here.

Beasts Clawing at Straws  is a 2020 South Korean crime thriller film written and directed by Kim Yong-hoon as his debut feature film. Based on the 2011 Japanese novel of the same name by Keisuke Sone, it stars Jeon Do-yeon, Jung Woo-sung, Youn Yuh-jung, Bae Seong-woo, Shin Hyun-bin, Jung Man-sik, Jin Kyung and Jung Ga-ram. It was released on February 19, 2020.

The film had its world premiere at the 49th International Film Festival Rotterdam on January 25, 2020 in the Tiger Competition.
​
SYNOPSIS

​Joong-man, stuck in a thankless job and forced to care for his ailing mother, finds a huge bag of money left in a sauna. Tae-young, a customs officer in debt to criminal Mr. Park, plots with one of Park's henchmen to run a lucrative scam on a "sucker" attempting to flee the country. Mi-ran, an escort with an abusive husband, finally sees a way out when one of her clients offers to murder him in exchange for a cut of his life insurance policy. The three characters all cross paths with dangerous people and get themselves into increasingly deeper trouble as they attempt to cheat their way towards the ultimate payout.

The film is separated into six chapters: Debt, Sucker, Food Chain, Shark, Lucky Strike and Money Bag.