Movie Review: Kon-Tiki

Thursday, May 9, 2013

Movie Review: Kon-Tiki

Kon-Tiki
Directed by:  Joachim Rønning & Espen Sandberg.
Written by: Petter Skavlan.
Starring: Pål Sverre Hagen (Thor Heyerdahl), Anders Baasmo Christiansen (Herman Watzinger), Tobias Santelmann (Knut Haugland), Gustaf Skarsgård (Bengt Danielsson), Odd Magnus Williamson (Erik Hesselberg), Jakob Oftebro (Torstein Raaby), Agnes Kittelsen (Liv Heyerdahl), Peter Wight (Spinden).

While I watched the Norwegian film Kon-Tiki I wasn’t surprised that the film was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar this past year. That category is usually filled with movies that feel American made in every way except their language. The voters in that category always seem to embrace traditional stories – like they do in every other category – instead of some of the truly daring films being made around the world. There is nothing really wrong with Kon-Tiki – it’s a fine nautical adventure film as far as it goes. There’s just not all that much reason why it needed to be made – or why you need to watch it.

 The film is about the famed expedition of Thor Heyerdahl and his ragtag group of crazy explorers. Heyerdahl had a theory that the people of Polynesian were really from South American descent, not Asian, as most believed. In order to prove his theory, he has to prove that it was possible for people from Peru to travel to Polynesia using Balsa wood rafts in the days before Columbus. Everyone thinks he’s crazy, but he firmly believes – and sets out on a raft with his group to prove it.

Watching Kon-Tiki, as it goes through the motions expected in this type of film, I couldn’t help but wonder just how good the film could have been in the hands of a director like Werner Herzog. For over 40 years now, Herzog has specialized in making films – either features or documentaries – about people who are obsessed with an idea, and more than that, willing to go to any lengths to prove they are right. That is what connects films as seemingly diverse as Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972), Fitzcaraldo (1984) and Grizzly Man (2005) among many others. Their main characters are driven – almost to the point of insanity (and in some cases well beyond) in proving their ideas right. And the real Thor Heyerdahl had to be somewhat insane to attempt the perilous journey he embarked on in his primitive raft, no?

But Kon-Tiki really isn’t that interested in what drives Heyerdahl – or really who he was at all. As for his crew, forget about it – the all start blending together, especially once they’ve been at sea for a while and all have crazy, NHL-playoff type beards (one of them may well have been Brent Burns for all I know). Why they accompany Heyerdahl is never explained, and who they are as people isn’t either. You would think that as they drift for days, weeks, months on end, with nothing but each other and the ocean around them, that they may have an interesting conversation at some point. But no, they don’t. All their conversations are either about their immediate needs – like not being eaten by sharks – or Heyerdahl talking about his ideas. It gets tiring after awhile.

But Kon-Tiki is a well-made film – and it has a few genuinely exciting moments. The best is undeniably the scene with the sharks – at first one, but then the blood in the water attracts many, many more. This is the one scene in the movie that really gets the blood pumping, and gets you to the edge of your seat. The rest of the movie is pretty much pretty pictures of them drifting in the water – and yes, it is beautiful.

There is a probably a good movie to be made out of this material. Herzog could have made it. Or perhaps even these filmmakers could have, if they were interested in something more complex than what they delivered. Heyerdahl’s theories and methods remain controversial to this day, but you wouldn’t know it from this movie, which portrays him as a straight ahead hero. I often complain that Hollywood movies take the path of least resistance – that they take what could be an interesting, complex story and dumb it down. If nothing else, Kon-Tiki is an example that proves it’s not just Hollywood who does that.

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

Movie Review: Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3
Directed by: Shane Black.
Written by: Drew Pearce & Shane Black based on the comic by Stan Lee and Don Heck and Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby.
Starring: Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark), Gwyneth Paltrow (Pepper Potts), Don Cheadle (Colonel James Rhodes), Guy Pearce (Aldrich Killian), Rebecca Hall (Maya Hansen), Jon Favreau (Happy Hogan), Ben Kingsley (The Mandarin), James Badge Dale (Savin), Stephanie Szostak (Brandt), Paul Bettany (Jarvis), William Sadler (President Ellis), Dale Dickey (Mrs. Davis), Ty Simpkins (Harley Keener), Miguel Ferrer (Vice President Rodriguez).

Iron Man 3 pretty much confirmed my suspicions about superhero movies coming off the one-two punch of 2012 with The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises – mainly that there is nothing else that can really be done with them that hasn’t been done before. The two 2012 movies pretty much took superhero movies to their logical extremes – it’s probably not possible to make a superhero movie darker or more realistic than Nolan’s Batman films and still have it be a superhero movie (not something like Kick Ass). And you probably can’t really make a superhero movie any bigger than The Avengers – after all, who else can you possibly add to make it an even bigger movie. I have a feeling that from now on, superhero movies will be much like Iron Man 3. If they’re as well done as this movie is, they will be entertaining – a fun way to spend a couple of hours. But like Iron Man 3, they won’t really add anything new to the genre.

This Iron Man finds Tony Stark still reeling from the events of The Avengers. He has become increasingly paranoid and sleep deprived, and works all night, seemingly every night, tinkering with his suits. Meanwhile, two things happen – one a terrorist named The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley), who has a Chinese name, dresses like a samurai, and makes videos like Osama Bin Laden lecturing America on their sins – has committed a number of bombings aimed at Americans. And the second is that two people from Stark’s past – botanist Maya Hansen (Rebecca Hall) and think tank leader Aldrich Killian (Guy Pearce) re-enter his life. And in a comic book movie, you know when someone from the past shows up, they usually aren’t friendly.

After two previous Iron Man movies, and The Avengers, we pretty much know what to expect from Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. At this point, his fast talking, charming ego maniac performance in these movies has essentially become shtick – although to be fair, it is still an entertaining shtick, unlike say Johnny Depp in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, which has gotten on my nerves in the last couple of movies. I could watch Downey Jr. riff as Tony Stark all day, and not get bored – which is a good thing, because that’s pretty much what he does in Iron Man 3. Unlike the first two movies, which were directed by Jon Favreau, this one is directed by Shane Black – more famous as a writer than a director – who helped write the other Iron Man movies, but this time is given full control. Perhaps that’s why this movie is more talky than the previous two – don’t worry, there is still plenty of action in Iron Man 3, and it’s handled well (although I did grow weary during the final, extended action sequence, which went on for too long, and essentially tried – and failed – to do something as big as The Avengers last year). Black, whose only other film as a director was the wonderfully entertaining Downey vehicle Kiss Kiss Bang Bang – which was all talk. That film was a critical favorite, and one of the key stops on Downey’s journey back to respectability.

The rest of the cast is in fine form. Gwyneth Paltrow has never really been given much to do as Pepper Potts, and that continues this time around – but she’s fine. Poor Don Cheadle has perhaps even less to do as Rhodes AKA War Machine, although he does have some amusing moments late in the movie. As for the newcomers, I don’t think I ever really bought Rebecca Hall as a botanist – not because she doesn’t seem intelligent enough to be a scientist (like say Denise Richards in that Bond movie), but because she seems too intelligent to be in this movie. Guy Pearce lays it on pretty thick as Aldrich Killian – but with a name like that he pretty much has to, right? The same can be said for Ben Kingsley, who is obviously having great fun playing the Mandarin. In short, they are a marked improvement over Mickey Rourke in Iron Man 2, but don’t truly rise to the level of great super villain.

I realize this review makes it sound like I didn’t really like Iron Man 3 all that much. That’s not true. The movie is over two hours long, but is never boring. It is well written by Black and Drew Pearce. Robert Downey Jr. is always great fun to watch when he does his Tony Stark thing – which he does far more than in the previous two movies, as he’s outside the suit more than usual. You can tell Black wanted to push the movie into some darker places – apparently he wanted to address Stark’s alcoholism and depression (well known to fans of the comics) but the studio balked. This is a definite improvement over Iron Man 2, which was a rather lazy outing even if it too was kind of fun. In short, Iron Man 3 is precisely what you think it’s going to be when you head into the theater. That’s both a good and bad thing.

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Best Director Under 40

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

My Answer to the Most Recent Criticwire Survey: Best Director Under 40

Who is the best filmmaker under 40? I was somewhat surprised, although I shouldn’t have been, that many of the directors I feel are at the top right now – Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, etc. – all have 40 in the rear view mirror. I was also surprised to learn that other directors I thought may make it – Ben Wheatley, Shane Carruth and Rian Johnson – are all also 40, but barely (and in the case of Johnson, he’ll be 40 this year). I also considered Derek Cianfrance, mainly for Blue Valentine and Craig Zobel, for Complaine, but for the life of me, I could not find their birthday. Maybe they’re 40, maybe not, so I decided to play it safe and go with someone else – I probably would have anyway.

But who? Neill Blomkamp’s District 9 was great, but I’d want to see Elysium before I decide on this him. Same with Sean Durkin – as much as I loved Martha Macy May Marlene, I need to see a follow-up before I anoint him the chosen one. Mia Hansen-Love is one of the more promising directors, as her first two films – The Father of My Children and Goodbye First Love, are quietly very good – but not quite great.I quite liked Xavier Dolan’s I Killed My Mother and Heartbeats – and I still need to see Laurence Anyways – but he’s got to at least be on the list, since he’ll be eligible for years and years to come. Edgar Wright is right on the cusp of 40, but not there yet, so I considered him – but as good as Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World are – he’s a notch below my top 3.

Jason Reitman has got to get some attention – mainly because he’s one of the few directors who keeps getting better each time out. There is a marked improvement from Thank You for Smoking to Juno to Up in the Air to Young Adult (even if audiences didn’t care for that last one). He’d be a very solid choice. Fellow Canadian Sarah Polley would also be a solid choice – although her best film remains her debut – Away From Her – but Take This Waltz and the documentary Stories We Tell are also excellent.

But my choice is Jeff Nichols. Nichols is only 35, and I can attest that he has made two great films – Shotgun Stories (2007) and Take Shelter (2011), and based on all the reviews, his latest Mud is one of most anticipated films of 2013. Take Shelter is one of those rare movies that just grows in your mind over time – I think it’s better now than I did even back when I saw it at TIFF in 2011. He’s a young master in the making.

Movie Review: The Iceman

Friday, May 3, 2013

Movie Review: The Iceman

The Iceman
Directed by: Ariel Vromen.
Written by: Morgan Land & Ariel Vroman based on the book by Anthony Bruno.
Starring: Michael Shannon (Richard Kuklinski), Winona Ryder (Deborah Kuklinski), Chris Evans (Robert Pronge), Ray Liotta (Roy Demeo), David Schwimmer (Josh Rosenthal), James Franco (Marty), Stephen Dorff (Joey Kuklinski), McKaley Miller (Anabel Kuklinski), Megan Sherrill (Betsy Kuklinski).

Michael Shannon specializes in playing men who are haunted by their own inner demons – demons that they eventually find impossible to control, and makes them grow increasingly paranoid and unstable throughout the movie. Think of how Oliver Stone used Shannon, in the otherwise far too conventional World Trade Center, to suggest that his character – who in most movies would be portrayed as a hero – was heroic yes, but also unstable. Or watch him in various movies like William Friedkin’s underrated Bug, Sam Mendes’s Revolutionary Road (where Shannon received an Oscar nomination) or Jeff Nichols’ Take Shelter. In his latest movie, The Iceman, Shannon once again plays a man haunted by his inner demons – but instead of outwardly breaking down, he keeps everything contained inside of him – never letting anyone see the real person inside – at least no one who was going to live. Shannon plays Richard Kuklinski, who was a Mafia hit man for years, and killed countless people in various ways, some simple shootings or poisonings, and some in the most sadistic fashion you can think of. Kuklinski feels no remorse for what he did – but for the entire running time of the movie, he never lets his family see the real Kuklinski. When, inevitably, it all comes crashing down on him, his wife and kids are stunned. They thought he was a nice guy. It is another great performance by Shannon – too bad the movie surrounding him is nowhere close to his level.

 

When we first meet Kuklinski, he is shooting pool in a bar, and when he wins the game, his opponent refuses to pay him the money he owes. He thinks Kuklinski cheated him, but when Kuklinski gets upset, the man wisely decides to pay him the money – but then unwisely decides to insult Kuklinski’s girlfriend Debra (Winona Ryder). Kuklinski bides his time, and when he sees his opportunity, the man pays with his life. It is the first of many killings we will see in the movie.

Soon, Kuklinski comes to the attention of Roy Demeo (Ray Liotta), a gangster who traffics in porn that Kuklinski illegally makes copies of. Demeo is impressed when he and his goons threaten Kuklinski, but instead of acting like most men do faced with this situation, and begging for mercy, Kuklinski holds his ground. After testing him – Kuklinski passes with flying colors – Kuklinski leaves his job dubbing porn movies, and instead goes to work for Demeo. If Demeo needs some money collected, Kuklinski gets the assignment. If Demeo needs someone killed, Kuklinski gets that assignment as well. He’ll kill anyone – as long as they are not a woman or a child – and he’ll do it anyone you want him to.

Shannon is all controlled fury in this movie. There is a madness in his eyes, but he keeps his voice calm. He is sure of himself, confident that he can do anything and get away with it. He loves his family – will truly do anything for them – but the rest of humanity he can without. We only get glimpses into his past – especially in the one scene involving his brother (Stephen Dorff) who Kuklinski disowns because he raped and murdered a child. Kuklinski is a monster, but one who is able to keep that a secret when he wants to. This is a great performance by Shannon – really the reason to see the movie.

The Iceman also boosts an impressive supporting cast, all doing fairly good work. Dorff has a memorable one scene cameo as Kuklinski’s brother, as does James Franco as a sleazy porn director. David Schwimmer isn’t given much to do other than look like an idiot with his cheesy 1970s mustache/pony tail/leisure suit look, but he is still hilarious every time he’s on screen. Ray Liotta can do this kind of gangster role in his sleep – he seemingly plays it a couple of times every year, but in Demeo he gets one of his better recent roles. While this movie won’t be the comeback role that Winona Ryder is hoping for, she dutifully plays the “wife” role well. Best of all has to be Chris Evans, almost unrecognizable as perhaps the only contract killer crazier than Kuklinski himself.

And yet, while I admired the performances of the entire cast, I never became truly involved with the movie itself. Perhaps it’s simply because at this point, I’ve seen so many gangster movies, that unless one is truly exceptional or offers an original viewpoint, it’s hard to get excited about it. Or perhaps it’s because having read Philip Carlo’s excellent true crime book The Iceman, and seen the infamous HBO interviews with Kuklinski, I knew that more of this movie was fiction than fact. In reality, Kuklinski was a prolific serial killer (by his own estimates 50-65 people) before he became a Mafia hit man, and more troubling, in real life Kuklinski regularly hit his wife, and although he never hit his kids, they were terrified of him. While they didn’t know what he did for a living, they were not surprised when it all came out – they certainly weren’t the innocent people who thought their husband/father was just a regular business, and a loving as they are portrayed as here. I haven’t read the book this movie is based on – by Anthony Bruno – because Carlo’s book is much more highly thought of (and is apparently becoming a movie in its own right, starring Mickey Rourke, who looks much more like Kuklinski than Shannon did). But I don’t think that’s it – I readily admit that even the best movies that are said to be “based on a true story” or more often than not more fiction than fact, and it doesn’t normally bother me. Here though, the story just seems too pat, too predictable, too easy. I ended up wanting to like The Iceman much more than I actually did. There is no doubt that Michael Shannon is brilliant in this movie – I just wish the rest of the movie lived up to its lead performance.

Movie Review: Greetings from Tim Buckley

Movie Review: Greetings from Tim Buckley

Greetings from Tim Buckley
Directed by:  Daniel Algrant.
Written by: Daniel Algrant and David Brendel and Emma Sheanshang.
Starring: Penn Badgley (Jeff Buckley), Imogen Poots (Allie), Ben Rosenfield (Tim Buckley), Norbert Leo Butz (Hal Wilner), William Sadler (Lee Underwood), Frank Wood (Gary Lucas) Ilana Levine (Paula), Kate Nash (Carol), Jessica Stone (Janine Nichols), Isabelle McNally (Jane Goldstein), Stephen Tyrone Williams (Carter), Frank Bello (Richard Hell), D.K. Bowser (Charles Mingus).

Both Tim Buckley, and his son Jeff, were talented singer-songwriters who died far too soon – Tim at 29 due to drugs, and Jeff at 30 because of a bizarre drowning incident. Jeff never really knew his father – saying he only met him twice – once at his first birthday party, and again at the age of 8 when Tim invited him to spend time with him and his new wife – and then spent most of that time at the studio recording an album, leaving Jeff behind. The film Greetings from Tim Buckley takes place in 1991 – 16 years after Tim’s death, and a couple of years before Jeff released his now iconic album Grace and became an star. It is about Jeff coming to New York to perform at a tribute concert for his father, and the complicated feelings it brings up in him.

Jeff Buckley is played by Penn Badgley, who is the main reason to see the film. With his floppy hair, Badgley looks enough like Buckley to pass, and more importantly in the film’s closing scenes at the concert, Badgley, who did all his own singing in the movie, pretty much nails Jeff’s distinctive voice. Most of the movie takes place in the days leading up to the concert, with Jeff constantly being told what a genius his father was, and the mounting anger, sadness and resentment this brings up in Jeff. He’s mad at his father for never letting him get to know him, mad at him for abandoning him and his mother, and then writing such beautiful songs about love. And he also sees himself in competition with his father – who at his age was already a star, while he is still toiling as a session musician and performing at small clubs. To give Jeff someone to talk to, the movie gives him a love interest in Allie, playing by the wonderfully charming, open faced Imogen Poots, as a kindly intern.

The film is mainly a low key affair. Despite all the angry and resentment Jeff feels towards his father, writer-director Daniel Algrant wisely avoids histrionics – Jeff never howls at the moon with anger, but keeps it fairly close to his chest. His bitterness is palpable, but never goes close to over the top – it feels real and painful. This isn’t to say that movie doesn’t have its BIG moments – the biggest being a flirtation in a record store where Jeff serenades Allie, and gradually gets louder and louder and more into the moment. I liked this low key approach that seems more attuned to both Buckleys. As well, by concentrating on just a few days, the movie foregoes the traps of most biopics that become a greatest hits collection.

The scenes that don’t work as well are flashbacks of Tim on the road in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I have a feeling the movie would have worked better without them – have Tim Buckley’s presence in the movie be through archival clips, and his songs – which is pretty much the only way Jeff knew his father. If done that way, I think the emotional involvement with Jeff would have been even greater.

The showpiece of the film is, of course, the climatic concert – where Jeff walked onto the stage an unknown, and walked off a star. Badgeley, who is great in the entire movie, raises his game to a whole new level in this sequence – deeply feeling the words he is singing to Tim’s songs. This performance by Badgeley will make you forget all the years he spent on Gossip Girl

Greetings from Tim Buckley is not a great movie. It is a little too low key for that, a little too predictable. It seems to want to be something like Once or even at times Before Sunrise/Before Sunset, and doesn’t quite reach that level. And yet, it remains a good film – with a great central performance by Penn Badgeley. A must for the fans of either junior or senior Buckley.

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Strange Love of Martha Ickers (1946)

The Best Movies I Have Never Seen Before: The Strange Love of Martha Ickers (1946)

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946)
Directed by: Lewis Milestone.
Written by: Robert Rossen & Robert Riskin based on the story by John Patrick.
Starring: Barbara Stanwyck (Martha Ivers), Kirk Douglas (Walter O’Neill), Van Hefllin (Sam Masterson), Lizabeth Scott (Toni), Judith Anderson (Aunt).

The Strange Love of Martha Ivers is an interesting film. Some refer to it as a film noir, and it certainly has elements of the genre – a deceitful femme fatale, who tries to draw in the innocent hero into a web of lies and murder. And yet, strangely, director Lewis Milestone treats it more like a melodrama – a tale of a warped marriage between Ivers and her husband. This makes for an odd little film. I didn’t much care what the hell happened to our “hero” – I just wanted to get back to the warped marriage that is really the film’s core.

The movie opens in 1928, where a young Martha Ivers is caught running away from home again. Her parents are dead, and she is being raised by a mean, rich, powerful Aunt (Judith Anderson, doing what she does best). She has run off with ne’er do well Sam Masterson to join the circus, but is caught and brought home. Sam comes looking for her that same night anyway, but when he sees Anderson stalking around the house, he takes off and doesn’t look back. But Walter sees Martha when she grabs her Aunt’s cane and kills her with it – as does Walter’s father, who is employed by the Aunt, and wants money and power.

Flash forward 18 years, and Sam (now played by Van Heflin), stumbles back into his hometown for the first time in years. His car breaks down, and he needs to wait to have it fixed. As he’s waiting, he meets Toni (Lizabeth Scott), and the two plan on leaving town together the next day – that is until she is arrested. Sam happens to notice a poster promoting the re-election of the District Attorney, who happens to be his old friend Walter (Kirk Douglas, in his film debut), and learns that Walter ended up marrying Martha (Barbara Stanwyck). Sam decides to pay a visit to his old friend and see if he’ll do him a favor, and get Toni out of jail. But Walter thinks Sam has something more sinister up his sleeve – blackmail. He was, after all, in the house that night, and may well have seen Martha murder her aunt. And since Walter and his father used this information to blackmail Martha into marriage, and to put her considerable fortune and influence behind Walter’s career, maybe Sam wants something similar.

As the movie wears on, I got tired of all the scenes with Van Heflin’s Sam – which is a shame since he is the leading man - unless they involved either Douglas or Stanwyck. I certainly didn’t much care about his relationship with Toni, that seems to be based on nothing other than the need for the hero to have a love interest, since they don’t know each other, and Lizabeth Scott is rather bland in her role anyway.

But whenever Stanwyck or Douglas are on screen, The Strange Love of Martha Ivers comes alive. Stanwyck oozed sex appeal and danger, and she does a wonderful job here as the ambitious, deceitful Martha, who you can never quite get a handle on. Does she, deep down, really love Walter? Or does she despise him, like she says, and really love Sam? Who is telling the truth about the drifter they framed for her Aunt’s murder? As for Douglas, I always liked him in roles like this – as a sort of slimy, sort of pathetic bad guy. Really, Walter is not much of a man, a lousy drunk, paranoid and sad about his life with Martha. And remarkably, in his debut film, Douglas gives Walter added complexity.

Had the movie focused more on Walter and Martha, it could have been great. As it stands, there are far too many scenes of Van Heflin, who is rather forgettable in the role that although he is the central character, feels underwritten. There are too many questions about his motivation that never really add up. But watching Stanwyck and Douglas together more than makes up for Heflin and Scott’s failings. The Strange Love of Martha Ivers may not be a great film, but it is a good one.

Movie Review: Pain & Gain

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Movie Review: Pain & Gain

Pain & Gain
Directed by: Michael Bay.
Written by: Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely based on the articles by Pete Collins.
Starring: Mark Wahlberg (Daniel Lugo), Dwayne Johnson (Paul Doyle), Anthony Mackie (Adrian Doorbal), Tony Shalhoub (Victor Kershaw), Ed Harris (Ed DuBois), Rob Corddry (John Mese), Bar Paly (Sorina Luminita), Rebel Wilson (Robin Peck), Ken Jeong (Johnny Wu), Michael Rispoli (Frank Griga), Keili Lefkovitz (Krisztina Furton), Emily Rutherfurd (Carolyn 'Cissy' DuBois), Larry Hankin (Pastor Randy), Tony Plana (Captain Lopez), Peter Stormare (Dr. Bjornson), Vivi Pineda (Detective Haworth), Ken Clement (Detective Costello), Yolanthe Cabau (Analee Calvera), Brian Stepanek (Brad McCalister).

At his best, which is admittedly rare, Michael Bay has always been a gifted Tony Scott imitator. Previous to his latest film, Pain & Gain, the best film Bay ever directed – by far – was 1996’s The Rock, which would fit in nicely alongside Scott’s action output during that time – Crimson Tide, Enemy of the State, etc. When Scott started pushing visual boundaries in the 2000s, Bay tried to follow suit – but other than parts of Bad Boys II and The Island – what this mainly meant is that Bay directed incoherent action sequences, in big, dumb, loud movies. Scott legitimately pushed boundaries – Bay did not – but as vilified as Bay is (much of it deserved), the truth has always been simple – Michael Bay can be a talented filmmaker. It’s just that of his films are so big and dumb – and so seemingly ignorant of just how big and dumb they are – that it’s impossible to like them. Bay appeals to the lowest common denominator – and since his films make money, he keeps doing it, and people keep giving him money to do so. But somewhere in there is a real director. With Pain & Gain, Bay lets that director out for a bit. It is the best film Michael Bay has ever made.

What’s strange is that it is still every inch a Michael Bay movie – although the budget is lower than most of his films, this is still a big, loud, dumb movie – except saying the movie is dumb isn’t exactly true. All the characters in the movie are complete idiots, true, but the movie – I think anyway – realizes this. Some will undoubtedly see the movie as hypocritical on Bay’s part – after all, the movie criticizes the empty headed, fast cars, big money, sexist attitude of its protagonists, even though it is his films that have glamorized the same thing for nearly 20 years now. Fair enough. Yet, perhaps because Bay is so familiar with these attitudes, he is the perfect director to really direct this film about the shallowness of those attitudes. He sees his characters for precisely for what they are – and makes the audience do the same. Is Michael Bay really calling the audience of a Michael Bay film idiots? Well, if the shoe fits.

The movie stars Mark Wahlberg as Daniel Lugo, a muscle bound lunkhead who works in a gym in Miami circa 1994. He has just out of a jail for fraud when he talks his way into a job as head trainer at a flailing gym – and immediately turns it around. He’s into self-help seminars – given hilariously by Ken Jeong – “Don’t be a Don’ter, Do be a Doer”. All of Lugo’s heroes – “Rocky, Scarface, everyone from The Godfather” – are self-made men, and he sees himself the same way. The problem, of course, is that Lugo is an idiot, and thinks that the best way for him to become a “self-made man” is to rob a rich person. He finds a particularly hateful specimen – Victor Kershaw (Tony Shaloub) at the gym. Half Colombian-half Jewish, Kershaw is all asshole. And because he’s an immigrant, Lugo feels that as a “native born American son” he is entitled to Kershaw’s piece of the American dream (flags are flapping everywhere in this movie). But Lugo’s doesn’t want to do a simple smash and grab job He’s “seen a lot of movies”, so he knows what he’s doing. He enlists the help of his two even stupider friends – Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson) – the latter of which is a former cokehead, who became a Born Again Christian in jail. Their plan? Kidnap Kershaw, and make him sign away all his assets to them. The only problem is, Kershaw is a lot tougher than he looks. Oh, and that the plan is moronic.

What Bay is attempting in Pain & Gain is not that different than Harmony Korine’s recent Spring Breakers – he is making a portrait of American stupidity - the American Dream gone bad. About how people want everything, but don’t want to do anything to earn it. Korine’s film is bolder, more provocative and more clearly a satire (even if some critics, and apparently most audiences missed this), whereas Bay mainly plays it straight. He sees with perfect clarity how one horrible idea leads to another, and yet another, and how these three idiots end up doing some of the most monstrous, disturbing things you will see in a movie this year. All the characters – except ex-cop Ed Harris – are morally bankrupt. Bay knows this, and depicts it with the kind of clarity, without the normal finger wagging, that is actually quite unique.

The acting in the movie is uniformly wonderful – especially by Wahlberg, who daringly goes down the rabbit hole in idiocy, and Johnson, who brilliantly plays off his tough guy persona, to make the most oddly sympathetic character in the movie. Tony Shaloub does what he does best – be despicable. Anthony Mackie is wonderful as the most insecure of the group – although it appears he has reasons to be so insecure. And Rebel Wilson gives a few hilarious scenes that are basically non-sequiturs, although so entertaining you don’t really care. All of the actors go for broke – and if Wilson and the only other major female character – Sorina (Bar Paly), who plays a dim Russian stripper, don’t exactly convince you that Bay isn’t the sexist everyone accuses him of being, at least this time, they’re not really dumber than the male characters. It’s a start.

 
Pain & Gain is a mess of contradictions. It mocks this culture, while also seeming to embrace it. It is a movie that depicts the harshest, most vulgar and lurid acts of violence you will see in a movie this year, and yet also plays them for laughs. You could certainly argue that this is insensitive to the real life victims of these muscle bound buffoons, and you wouldn’t exactly be wrong. But then that’s true of all movies based on real life crimes – and Bay embraces the vulgarity so completely, you have to kind of admire him for it. No, Michael Bay is still no Tony Scott – he would have made an even more twisted movie. And when I think of what the Coen Brothers could do with this material (it isn’t that far away from Burn After Reading), I’m somewhat disappointed they didn’t make it. When I get right down to it, I’m not sure whether I should be shocked and offended by the film, and decry Bay for making it in the first place, or be shocked and offended, and praise him. I’ll choose the later. For the first time Michael Bay has made a film worth talking about.