Review: Pain & Gain

Whoa.  That’s my first reaction to Pain & Gain.  Not because it is so amazing or because it is horribly bad, but because the movie from start to finish is all over the place.  This probably doesn’t sound like a shocking reveal since Michael Bay was the man behind the camera.  No person cinematically represents the antithesis of “less is more” to a greater extent than he of Armageddon, Bad Boys, and Transformers fame, but his latest film has a decidedly different feel then its frenetically paced predecessors.  Slower and more drawn out, the pacing allows you to take in everything that is unfolding onscreen.   But is this necessarily a good thing?

The plot of the movie is based on the real life activities of Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg); a low rent con man that spends the bulk of his time cultivating his muscle more than his mind.  Driven by self-help drivel, he enlists the help of two of his fellow gym mates Adrian Doorbal and Paul Doyle (Anthony Mackie and Dwayne Johnson) to kidnap and rob local douche bag Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub).  This kicks off a series of miscalculations that leads to a crime spree.

The premise seems interesting enough, but is prone to stretches where it’s just not that interesting.  For a director who is known and panned for over-the-top action sequences unfolding at breakneck speed, the pacing of the film is startlingly slow and bogged down at times in exposition.  Another problem with Bay easing on the rapid cuts and taking his foot off the gas pedal is that it allows the viewer a chance to see all the warts on his production.  And there are more than a few. 

Wart 1: The plot is too convoluted.  Three guys did a bad thing.  That’s the story, but the way Bay wants to tell it, the viewer must sit through the backstory of every peripheral character and let them take turns as a third person narrator.  This is a delicate balance to maintain and Bay lacks the directorial touch to pull it off.  As a result of this, the film’s tone and congruity are completely demolished beneath the weight of mismatched machinations. 

Wart 2: The movie is just too long.  I couldn’t help thinking that if Bay pulled this movie off at his usual pace, the movie would have been more palatable.  A typical Hollywood production has three distinct acts and while we live in a world that now detests formulaic procedure, this is one formula that works.  And when something goes awry, the average moviegoer can sense it.  Pain & Gain not only has three plodding acts, it feels like there is a fourth and fifth act added on for bad measure.  Every time the narrative builds to a crescendo, it veers off into another direction and prolongs the inevitable.

Wart 3: The character mix.  It’s tough for a film to be enjoyed without one decent character that the viewing audience can identify with or root for.  Somewhere in each film, there usually needs to be that one person the audience would like to see land on their feet when all the rubble settles.  It’s why there are cops and robbers stories instead of just robbers and robbers.  Unfortunately, this is a movie about a bunch of really bad people doing really bad things to each other.  The closest we get to a sympathetic figure is Johnson’s Paul Doyle, but Bay swings him across the spectrum of good and bad like the pendulum on the clock thus compromising his likability.

As for the work of the cast, I found most everyone to be perfectly adequate.  Wahlberg does what he does and never takes an acting risk.  He doesn’t ruin the movie, but he also doesn’t make it better. Anthony Mackie proves himself to be a capable sidekick for Wahlberg’s foibles, but none would mistake this for his best work.  Rebel Wilson, Tony Shalhoub, Rob Corddry, and Ed Harris are absolutely satisfactory and unremarkable in their supporting roles and never make a significant impact to the quality of the finished product.  Given that the cast is littered with people who know how to deliver a scene, one has to wonder if it was the nature of the plot and direction that accounts for the plethora of muted performance.

The two who shine best in Pain & Gain are Dwayne Johnson and Bar Paly.  Johnson takes some risks and offers genuine comedic moments with the brand of charisma that has made him a star in the action genre.  Few in the business today can combine action and humor better than the former WWE star.  As for Bar Paly, while it is easy to dismiss her as mere eye candy, she does a nice of parodying herself and poking fun at a character that is perhaps the most ridiculous amongst of a gallery of undesirables.

It would seem then that my takeaways from this film are that Dwayne Johnson and Bar Paly are good, Michael Bay is bad, and everyone else is in between.  But does that mean you should run out to the cinema to see Pain & Gain?  The simple answer is no.  It’s too long and not enough fun to pay the premium.  There are too many interesting movies on the horizon to waste your time with this one.  Instead, put this title on your Netflix and give it a spin in the comfort of your own home.  It may or may not entertain you, but at least you will have spent a lot less money and will get to enjoy it in the comfort of your own home.

Standout Performance: Dwayne Johnson.  He’ll never be confused with a Dustin Hoffman or a Daniel Day-Lewis, but he always keeps it interesting. 

Read More

Review: Broken City

Ever make a really complicated dinner?  Sometimes you can have the perfect recipe, the freshest ingredients, and a huge appetite to match, yet after throwing everything into the pot and letting it stew, things just don’t come together properly.  Broken City starring Mark Wahlberg is the cinematic equivalent of that culinary dish gone awry, because on paper it has a lot going for it - dirty cops, politicians, infidelity, city-wide corruption, and a competent cast to play things out.  Despite this, none of it melds into anything resembling a riveting film, but rather a less than appetizing finished product. 

In the film, Mark Wahlberg plays Billy Taggart a disgraced cop turned private investigator who is hired by the Mayor of New York City to spy on his wife.  His work leads to a series of revelations that could impact a multi-billion dollar real estate deal and the NYC mayoral campaign, but may come at the steep cost of all that he holds dear in his life. 

Plots of this ilk that focus on corruption, infidelity, and intrigue need to be intelligent and emotionally charged in order to work, because the challenge is to keep the viewer constantly guessing and to keep them invested in the inevitable outcome.  Justice served is only a satisfying payoff if the crime is egregious enough and the emotional scarring palpable.  Unfortunately, Brian Tucker’s script really falls short in the intelligence department.  The plot tips its hand way too early and the mechanisms of misdirection are as transparent as a windowpane.

As for the emotional component of the script, that responsibility falls to the cast.  The biggest factor working against this movie is what I call “The Erosion of Mark Wahlberg’s Credibility as a Serious Lead.”  It all started harmlessly with the Andy Samberg's “Mark Wahlberg Speaks to Animals” skit on Saturday Night Live.  That it was so funny, really gave birth to the realization that Wahlberg’s muscle bound machismo could serve as a great punch line.  This movement picked up great steam with The Other Guys – a movie in which Wahlberg was hilarious working opposite Will Ferrell.  And the deal was essentially sealed when he absolutely tore it up in Seth McFarlane’s Ted.  From then on, it has been virtually impossible for me to take Wahlberg serious especially when he raises his voice an octave as a means of emoting.  The guy is just naturally funny, and unfortunately, this is not good for a narrative that is all about gravitas, intrigue, and city grit.

What serves as the nail in the coffin for this troubled project is that no one is up to the task of picking up the slack for Wahlberg.  There was a time when Russell Crowe was an A-lister, and when Catherine Zeta-Jones was an A-lister.  Clearly we are no longer in those times.  Crowe plays a NYC version of his character from Body of Lies and guess what?  It still doesn’t work.  The smug devil may care grin he sports in this film is spot on but nothing else is.  As for Zeta-Jones, she has yet to make the transition into an actress venturing into her golden years as Sigourney Weaver and Jamie Lee Curtis have and thus the vampy histrionics of her youth simply do not play in this role.  The net result is that her portrayal of what should be a strong and defiant first lady of NYC, feels like it is more bark than bite.

The rest of the cast has a group of notable actors in Jeffrey Wright, Barry Pepper, Kyle Chandler, James Ransone, and Natalie Martinez but director Allen Hughes really stifles their talents by placing them in these one dimensional characters that march in straight lines and only make ninety degree angle turns.  This is supremely disappointing as they represent a diverse collection of actors that could have created an interesting mix onscreen.

When I look at the finished product, I can’t help but think that it feels like an extended episode of Law & Order or any other cop drama you can name off the top of your head.  So paying for this film will leave you feeling supremely cheated.  I don’t recommend this movie, but at the same time I am sure there is a segment of the population who will find some enjoyment in it.  At best, this is one you should wait to catch on TNT or TBS on a night when you have a few hours to burn.  You probably won’t remember the name of the movie after you watch it, but at least you won’t be kicking yourself for going out of your way.

Standout Performance: Natalie Martinez.  This is the second movie I have seen Martinez in and I think that in small doses, she has done a good job of delivering authentic performances.

Read More

Review: Ted

I have never watched an episode of Family Guy or American Dad and I missed the Comedy Central Roast of Charlie Sheen so I am unfamiliar with Seth MacFarlane’s work.  In fact, I would have no idea what he even looks like had someone not told me a few years back that I had just seen him in a karaoke bar in Koreatown.  Initially I had little interest in his directorial debut in Ted as the traditional trailers and TV spots did little to pique my interest.  It was not until I saw the red band trailer (or R-rated trailer) on YouTube that I took an interest in the movie as it became evident they weren’t going to pull any punches in this comedy.  My one trepidation about the movie was whether or not the live teddy bear gag would wear thin within the first fifteen minutes of the film. 

Thankfully, it does not.

The plot of the film is a where-are-they-now story set twenty years after a lonely ten- year old boy wishes that his teddy bear would come to life.  What ensues is a brand of vulgar yet lovable idiocy.  The premise is ridiculous and the jokes profane and vulgar, but despite the best efforts of the raucously foul mouth teddy bear to misdirect, this film is a very much the amalgamation of romcom and buddy flick that has proven to be a big box office winner.  So what makes the movie all come together?

It starts with Mark Wahlberg.  I am in no way a fan of Mark Wahlberg - the serious actor, but as I mentioned in my review of Contraband, I am a huge fan of Mark Wahlberg - the comedic actor.  In my opinion, his best work leading into this movie is in the vastly underrated The Other Guys.  What makes him good at inducing laughter is the ever-so-slight awkwardness that underlies his machismo that translates easily into a punch line.  As John – the man-child owner of Seth MacFarlane’s Ted, he is such a likable character because he delivers line after line of absurdity with a high level of sincerity.  To say that he and MacFarlane have a strong chemistry trading barbs and engaging in sophomoric repartee is a huge understatement.

As for the aforementioned MacFarlane, his voice work as Ted is equally important to the success of the movie.  He perfectly complements Wahlberg’s more methodical verbal pacing with his quick delivery and sharp one-liners, which fire off faster than the punch lines at a Chris Rock standup set (circa 1999) and are just as funny.  As I watched the movie, I was amazed that no matter how raunchy or borderline offensive the jokes were, the mask of a fuzzy teddy bear worked miracles in dulling any sense of impropriety.  But make no mistake about it, underlying the boatloads of vulgarity that spew forth from Ted’s mouth, is a ton of heart.

Almost as good as Wahlberg and MacFarlane is Mila Kunis, who has mastered the art of playing the incredibly attractive yet utterly approachable woman who is almost too cool to really exist.  She has the difficult task of playing the part of the unsatisfied girlfriend who acts as the foil to the juvenile chicanery, without losing favor with the audience.  This is no easy fete to achieve – one that Katherine Heigl has failed to master in just about all of her movies, but Kunis pulls it off perfectly. 

As for the rest of the cast, the work is spot on.  Giovanni Ribisi excels at playing an uber creep - likewise for Joel McHale.  Patrick Warburton (Puddy from Seinfeld) and Ryan Reynolds are awkwardly funny in very small doses and even Laura Vandervoort – who is brought on to be just another pretty face, fits that bill perfectly.  But to me, Sam Jones, who is best remembered as Flash Gordon in the 80’s cult classic, turns in the breakout performance from the supporting cast.  His appearance in the film is a great gag that delivers huge returns.

I would definitely recommend this movie.  In fact, I myself am planning to see it a second time, as there were almost too many jokes to digest.  Without a doubt, this film is right there with 21 Jump Street as one of the funniest movies I have seen this year and that it is filmed against the backdrop of Boston, Massachusetts is a huge added bonus.  See this movie ASAP and see it with a friend, a sibling, or a significant other.  Ted is a hilarious movie that has a nice balance of romance and raunch that ensures a good time will be had by all. 

Standout Performance: Sam Jones from the cult classic Flash Gordon – a campy movie that is perfectly described in Ted as "so bad and so good” – steals the show.  If you haven’t seen that film, you should see that one too.

Read More

Review: Contraband

There is no beating around the bush.  Contraband was a disappointment, although you can never really be sure what you are going to get when it comes to Mark Wahlberg.  For every hit like The Fighter, The Departed, and The Perfect Storm, there’s a bunch of misses like The Happening, Max Payne, and Planet of the Apes.  Still, with Ben Foster, Giovanni Ribisi, Lukas Haas, and Kate Beckinsale rounding out the cast, it was hard not to feel optimistic - especially given the fact we fans of action movies demand very little from filmmakers.  Fisticuffs, a solid car chase, some semblance of a love interest, and a double cross usually do the trick.  Yet sadly director Baltasar Kormakur fails to deliver a film that entertains.

The premise of the movie is in no way ground breaking.  Wahlberg plays Chris Faraday, a former smuggler turned straight, who is dragged back into the sordid business because of family.  If you are picturing Gone in Sixty Seconds minus the parade of exotic sports cars and Nic Cage's hairline then sadly you are on the right track.

So What Made This Film Not Work?

First and foremost the biggest slice of humble pie has to go to Marky Mark Wahlberg.  To me, Wahlberg is like Channing Tatum.  They are both cut from the same cloth.  They have limited range, an inability to truly emote, have a desire to bring some urban street cred to every role they are in (even when it’s not relevant to the plot), and overt machismo and this combination of qualities makes it extremely difficult for me to take either actor seriously.  Like Tatum in 21 Jump Street, I think Wahlberg is at his best when he is doing comedy as in the highly underrated The Other Guys, which exploited Wahlberg’s mediocre acting skills to set up great punch lines.

A piece of blame pie also has to go Giovanni Ribisi, who since The Rum Diary seems intent on portraying his characters with a very high pitched nasally tone that makes you want to press the mute button.  Ribisi has been in some great movies (Avatar, Lost in Translation) but unless he was directed to portray a generic mundane low-rent drug dealer with a really annoying voice, Ribisi really misses the mark here.  He fails to bring any real menace to the screen except when he is picking on women and children, which makes us wonder why we should care about Wahlberg’s machinations. 

The biggest culprit in the failure of the movie is the set up of the double-cross.  You will see it coming about five minutes after the opening credits and spend the next hour waiting for it to materialize.  For a movie that desperately wants to be a clever heist film the way Ocean’s Eleven is, this is a major indictment and the ultimate failure of the movie.  Because the action sequences are neither big nor impressive and the acting is not top notch, so without that impact of a “big reveal,” the proceedings completely fall flat.

I don’t recommend this film, but I am not going to completely dissuade people from seeing it.  I am sure there is a segment of the population who just wants to watch my fellow Bostonian flex his muscles as I am sure that there is another segment that does not mind watching a blonde Kate Beckinsale.  I really would not suggest you go out of your way to watch it.  Perhaps you can catch it on TNT in about a year when you have nothing better to do.  Under those conditions, it might play like a cheap man’s Italian Job.    Here’s hoping Wahlberg recaptures some of that comedic magic in Ted, his next theatrical release that just got bumped up to June 29^th.

Standout Performance: Caleb Landry Jones (X-Men: First Class) turns in a convincing performance as Wahlberg’s screw up brother-in-law.

Read More