Pain and Gain

With having heard today that Michael Bay will be producing the upcoming remake of The Birds, an announcement that spurred on a lot of personal feelings, I think it is only fitting to look at Pain and Gain, Bay’s voyage into a crime comedy.  Best known for his Transformer franchise, Bay often brings about movies that are visually spectacular yet generally lose focus when it comes down to items such as plot and character development.  Personally, those are two things that I would hold above immaculately rendered explosions, but I cannot blame people for getting excited about eye candy, especially when it is front and centre on the big screen.

In Pain and Gain we have a genre that is outside of the norm for Bay, a story about muscled up gym rats who turn to crimes such as kidnapping and fraud to earn some much desired cash.  The movie was based on the true story of the Sun Gym Gang, and stars Mark Walhberg, Dwayne Johnson, and Anthony Mackie as the rogues gallery of villains who have more brawns than brain and end up facing mishap after mishap as they attempt to kidnap and extort a wealthy jerk, played by Tony Shaloub.  One thing this movie teaches us is that iron-pumping alpha males may not make criminal masterminds.

Even though this is not the typical Michael Bay format, it does not take long to see his personal style imprinted all throughout this tale.  I often think of his style as ‘rock and roll directing,’ where things are loud, flashy, and non-stop, and unfortunately this seeped into the bones of Pain and Gain, giving it a feeling of an energy drink commercial at times. 

One aspect that keeps this driving feel throughout the film is the almost continuous assault of music, feeling like the beating heart of a speed freak who has just ran a marathon, drank a case of Jolt Colas (remember those?), and ate chocolate covered espresso beans.  It reminded me of an episode of Grey’s Anatomy, where music seems to feel the need to creep into almost every moment to the point of not allowing situations, emotions, and environment settle down on the audience.  I believe the point of this choice was to create a feel to the movie to mimic the roid-raging fellas who like to keep the iron pumping, but it never felt like a match.  In the movie Crank, a film with a speedy pulse as well, I was annoyed by the style but soon appreciated how it went hand in hand with how the film rolled out.  In Pain and Gain there appears to be no real correlation between the flowing of the story (not that I am saying there is much of a flow) and the presentation.  There was also an abundance of slow motions shots for some reason.

For a movie that is a ‘comedy,’ I barely found any moments of laughter as a lot of the jokes seemed almost cruel in nature or extremely immature.  Rebel Wilson was able to bring some humour, charm, and charisma into the film through her performance as Mackie’s girlfriend, but her appearances were few and far between.  Dwayne Johnson also made me laugh a time or two, but not as much as I would have liked to.  His character (which was not based on a real life person, but more of a collection of multiple people) was incredibly simplistic and almost stereotypish in how he behaved, making his motivations almost unbelievable.  There is no point in blaming him, or any of the cast for that matter, as he was working with what he was given.

In the film, the three main characters are portrayed as mostly harmless individuals who just get caught up in a situation that brings about actions that they were not really intending to indulge in, such as torture and murder.  The reality of the case is that the torture was in truth brutal, almost done in good fun, and murder was an intention from the start.  As the film progressed, I was not sure why Bay chose to attempt to make the characters relatable, because they really weren’t, not even in the dumbed down and padded version that we ended up seeing.  Were we supposed to sympathize with these people?  Was the intention that we would see the movie and think about the poor guys who just lost their way?

A bright note in the movie was the underused character of Ed Harris, who played a private investigator (retired, but called in for one more case… yep, cliché) who assisted the kidnap victim in tracking down the people who took everything he had.  Really, Harris should have been the person the story should have followed, as he was someone the audience could relate to and understand.  Instead, he was just another piece in a puzzle and felt like a bunch of mismatched pieces jammed together by a toddler with peanut butter all over his hands.

Normally I do not get too critical of a film that claims it is based on a true story and then deviates away from the truth to get to the story that the director was inspired to tell.  Pain and Gain gets no shelter from this as far as I am concerned, as this was the first movie that I can recall that actually stopped the action well into the film to directly remind the audience that ‘this is still a true story.’  Claims as such made outside the credits, or close to them, just serve as an indicator that something like this has actually happened, but to insert a statement directly in the middle of the tale seeks to assure the audience that it is an accurate story.  Oddly enough, at the moment of the reassurance of the legitimacy of the story, we see a fictional character grilling body parts in a location where it did not happen, and getting reprimanded for it by the character who, in real life, was the one who did the grilling.

The movie really felt like a jumbled mess, aided by the fact that almost every character got a chance to be the narrator, creating a confusion of who this film is really about.  For a crime movie it was not very captivating, and for a comedy it was not very funny.  It was a film that tried to use a flashy approach that works well enough for a popcorn munching blockbuster, but falls extremely short for a ‘based on real life’ movie about some tank top wearing good old boys who commit fraud, kidnapping, and murder.

Rating – 1.5 out of 4 stars

Pompeii

Lately I have been really bad at doing this whole 'movie a day' thing.  A large part of that was working with a short story for a contest that had my mind completely bogged down for the last week.  It is not a great reason, or excuse, but I found it very hard to motivate myself to hop onto much else while the deadline for the contest was quickly approaching.  The piece is now completed, printed, and mailed off, so life can continue for me.

Leading up to the release of Pompeii, the trailers showed a movie that felt like Gladiator meets a volcano disaster movie (insert Dante’s Peak or Volcano) with hints of other films in there as well.  After seeing it I can easily confirm that it is exactly what I had expected, to the point of creating some boredom induced nausea, the kind that wants to erupt much in the same way that a digitally animated Mount Vesuvius wants to spew molten death over poor dialogue and an inanely simple love story.  Luckily for me, I was able to leave the theatre with nothing having erupted personally, but many aftershocks of cynicism and apathy were reverberating through my being.

It is not an awful movie.  Not awful to the point of making the audience mad for having their intelligence insulted (although I imagine there may be some people left feeling that way), and not horrible to the point of being laughably funny (there were a few extremely laughable scenes).  The problem with this film was its complete lack of energy and life, as it merely attempted to simply be a rehashing of stories and characters that we feel like we have seen many times before.  As the movie rolled out, my companion at the theatre decided to play a game where he would count the number of original scenes that he saw.  I believe that quest was bailed on, as I asked him how bored he was about halfway through, and he assured me he was not bored at all as his mind was on other more interesting and important things.  Like the poorly digitized bodies in ashes that bookmark the film (seriously, why could they not have simply built props?) this movie felt dead and buried to the point being a long and drawn out funeral service.

Playing the role of the lead was Kit Harrington, who is best known for his work in the popular series Game of Thrones.  Harrington played a slave who was an awesome gladiator, probably on account of his ability to strenuously flex his abdominal muscles in every scene he was in.  Harrington’s character was featured in a scene at the beginning of the movie which reminded me a lot of Conan the Barbarian where his village was overrun and he witnessed an evil man slay his family.  During the battle, he sees a man kicking ass, and I think we were to believe that witnessing this is what enabled him to fight later on in life.  It may not make great sense while you read it, but I am simply describing the schlock that was placed in front of me.  He then meets a prominent lady, played by Emily Browning, and we know that these two hot people are destined to fall in cliché love before running across the path of a dastardly volcano.

Everything that unfolds in this film is incredibly predictable, and it becomes clear as we are introduced to different characters and see developments happen that we will quickly be able to figure out just where the story is going.  It is not aided by scenes being completely lifted out of movies, such as scenes from Gladiator (it really liked stealing from that film), which eventually ground me down to a point of not really caring for any reason at all and found it hard to focus on viewing it from a critical standpoint.  The dialogue, much like the acting, is about as childish and basic as it gets, and the decisions of the characters begin to baffle onlookers who get tired of the fact that people seem to forget there is a volcano erupting and continually deviate from escaping with their lives to carry out pointless actions that serve the weak plot.

I won’t put much blame for this on the actors, but more so on the poor screenplay that was etched by Janet Scott Batchler, Lee Batchler, and Michael  Robert Johnson, which gave none of the talent anything to really work with.  On top of the flaccid story was the directorial work of Paul W.S. Anderson who enjoys a style over substance approach to his films, but seems to fall short in both categories from time to time.  In the case of Pompeii, this is one of those times.  Visually it was not a great movie, except for some of the long distance shots of the exploding mountain near the end of the film, and there was a great use of lackluster CGI for items that could have easily been props or models and ended up looking a lot better.  As well, he really wanted these characters to be as one dimensional as possible, with Harrington only ever delivering lines and emotions of bravery and never actually acting like a real person.

It is unfortunate, because I could go on and on, writing at long lengths different things about this film but it just would not be appropriate because there are so many other things that are better uses of my time.  I have been putting off this review for a number of days because I have been completely uninspired by the film, a movie that is uninspired itself.  It may have the clanging of swords and the ever-so-spectacular moments of people running away from poor special effects on a blue screen, but it has little more to add than just that.  I was bored watching it, and I am kind of bored sitting here writing about it.

Rating – 1.5 out of 4 stars

About Last Night

It turns out that I have really not been good at keeping this blog up to date, and I could come up with a number of excuses.  Some of them are good, but I know for a fact that some are not.  More of the anxiety stuff was in there and was becoming a hindrance, as well as an awesome visit from the in-laws that took all of the steam out of this happy-go-lucky introvert.  I have also been trying to finish up a short story for a contest, so that has been occupying a lot of time and mental energy.  Anywho, enough excuses, it is time for the review.

Valentine’s Day weekend is a glistening opportunity for empty romantic gestures, and, as well, empty romantic movies.  There is opportunity for other genres to get into the mix, but nothing says ‘I love you’ more than sappy music, poor dialogue, the hunk, the damsel, and some kind of vomit inducing plot that does not resemble any earthly reality of what a healthy relationship is.  But, it has a hunk, causes a tear or two, so guys follow their girls to the theatre to celebrate a day of superficial emotion.  This year saw three romantic movies come out during this time, with two of them being remakes from the 80s.  A fourth movie was an 80s remake as well, but I don’t think Robocop ever made it to the ‘dinner and a movie’ experience for the gushing couples.

Remakes can baffle people.  For some reason, they are constantly done.  Most of the time there is absolutely no purpose to the existence of the remake as it seems little more than a cash grab and an admittance of not being able to come up with original ideas.  They can lack the fun characters, charm, and energy that the originals had, and leave a taste and texture in your mouth as if you had just pumped a fistful of flour into your maw.  This is really what I was expecting to come face to face with when I saw About Last Night this past weekend.

Much to my surprise, the movie was absolutely full of energy.  If there is something that would be hard to deny about this film is that it had a very vivid pulse to it, a life that was able to make it feel like a movie with attitude and purpose.  While it had a fair bit of raunchy humour, it was the casting that made this movie work.  Kevin Hart (who plays Bernie) has become a true star in the last year, and some may feel a bit slighted to find out that he was only in a supporting role in this film.  Fear not, the man has many a great scenes.  Spurring him onto greatness was his female counterpart (Regina Hall, who plays Joan) in a very physical and dysfunctional relationship.  The comedic chemistry between this pairing was incredible and they were able to push each other in scenes, even though they sometimes may have travelled a bit down the road of the ridiculous.

The main thrust of the story centred on the down to earth friends of Bernie and Joan, whom the couple set up and begin seeing each other.  Both have been hurt in the past and are more interested in a relationship that has more to it than the antics of Bernie and Joan, but both have baggage that also hinders that from being a natural mission to accomplish.  Debbie (Joy Bryant) and Danny (Michael Ealy) find themselves assaulted by relationship advice from their friends, who are the people who really appear to be the least capable of giving solid counsel on such matters.  As things progress, they find the monotony of the daily committed relationship loses the luster that their fling once had, the kind of topic that those other romantic movies always avoid.

It is the decision to look at love from the framework of commitment and long term partnership that was able to separate this film from others, but it did so in a way that regular movie goers who just want their romantic swill will not be put off.  Usually it is films for older audiences that look at this theme, such as Enough Said, and Before Midnight, films that never break out because perhaps they lack that superficiality that the masses crave.  Essentially, it was a mature-themed story that was well wrapped and sold as the typical film, becoming something that can appeal to myself as well as those who just wants the guy to kiss the girl.  About Last Night was able to present a message of more thought in a realm that usually ignores intelligence.

Now, it was not a perfect film and it did have some timing flaws.  As the couples encounter issues, it usually felt as though it was forced and the struggles did not have the most natural way of surfacing.  I never really felt as though I could fully relate to the problems that arose, not because they are not real and common problems, but with the nature in which they arrived at them.  Because of the important role that the tensions played on the overall narrative, it became hard to be emotionally invested throughout the entire movie.  As well, there were stretches of time where the story felt a little slow and drawn out.

But, who really wants that in a Kevin Hart film?  Sure, I was not completely there the whole time.  Sure, it was not flawless.  This is all alright, because the film was incredibly funny and provided a much better story than I had anticipated.  This film had the romance, it had the comedy, and it had great casting, which is what makes a wonderful Valentine’s Day movie.  You could find funnier films and you could find more emotional films, but this one is able to balance the two in a way that should keep most people happy.

Rating – 3 out of 4 stars

The Square

While some documentaries are constructed to prove a point, sell an ethic, or construct a moral argument, The Square provides a window into the street level perspective of a revolution as it follows the protests in Tahrir Square, Cairo, following the start of the Arab Spring in 2011.  While it does not attempt to provide a multi-sided story, it strives to show the desires, drive, and emotions of those who are dedicated to their cause in seeing true democracy in the country that they love so dearly. 

The movie follows a group of revolutionaries who are seeking to end the system of government in Egypt, and bring in one that is free from corruption and offers equal opportunities to all.  Not only are these people followed in the film, but they are also given cameras during different events to allow for many different perspectives on what transpires.  Director Jehane Noujaim started the project while it was in its early days, and followed it through up until the ousting of President Mohamed Morsi in July of 2013.  Noujaim had The Square edited and screening at the Sundance Film Festival in 2013, but headed back to Egypt to get footage of the ongoing protests.

What really adds weight to this film is that it feels like we start gaining an attachment to the documentary’s main principles, and so their struggle ultimately becomes a desire that we begin to feel ourselves.  We see their successes, learn of their mistakes, and see them celebrate as well as find them at moments where the trauma of the resistance they face has them at a point of almost quitting.  Our heart breaks for them, and the commitment they show becomes an inspiration as atrocities are unable to ultimately break their spirits, but eventually fuel them to continue on.  While a cause can run out of steam and emotion after a few weeks, we gain a perspective of people who will fight for years, the kind of individuals whose characters are capable of changing the world.

It is this glimpse that we get that really makes this film so special.  While it is one thing to follow a movement by keeping up on the news, we see through this story that there is a lot more than meets the eye.  There is so much to the narrative that it is impossible to truly get a sense for what is happening on ground level.  Each side does what it can to win public opinion and tell its story, and The Square allows a glimpse behind all of that to see the front line actions and the meetings behind the scenes.    We see the personal dilemmas that the participants put themselves in, and how quickly a movement that starts out pure and unified can begin to fracture as people start to desire outcomes that benefit them individually.

Allowing for all of this to be pulled off is the use of many cameras that are small enough and portable enough to get into all of the different situations without being so big that they gain the attention of the authorities.  There is a moment when there is a confrontation and the filming abruptly stops, and apparently it was a quick switch of memory cards that ensured that footage would make the film.  One can only imagine what the documentary would have been if the film makers never had any footage confiscated (there were times where they lost footage) but what they assembled was incredibly powerful.

What we can take away from this documentary is that when there is corruption, there is no cut and dry approach.  There is no easy solution, and there is no quick fix.  It shows the power of the people, that when citizens are willing to stand together bravely and be undeterred, governments and institutions cannot stand.  We learn that those who lead such movements are incredibly special people, committed to a dream and a vision, who are able to share that with others, and who have a true understanding of the sacrifice that is needed to achieve the goal.  The most powerful thing we learn is that change was not instituted by groomed leaders or people who were born with a silver spoon in hand, but that rising from the populace were ordinary people who had a belief in what was right.

Rating – 4 out of 4 stars