Pain & Gain (2013) – Review

Review: Pain & Gain is entertaining, yes, but also stylistically vulgar. The film is about Daniel Lugo, a personal trainer and amateur body builder, who aspires for more out of life, but instead of working hard he decides to kidnap one of his wealthy clients and force him to give up everything he owns. To do this, Lugo enlists two of his bodybuilder friends Adrian Doorbal and Paul Doyle.

In its best moments Pain & Gain is very entertaining and very funny, playing off the sheer hilarity of the ridiculousness of this true story and the odd characters in it. But that said, the film is not nearly as entertaining or funny as director Michael Bay seems to think it is, which leaves it over-long and ultimately a little tiresome.

Its main problem comes from Bay’s pacing and the story’s narrative structure. The first act shows Lugo in his depressed, poverty stricken natural state, which sets the table for why he would even aspire to such a crime in the first place. Bay also extensively uses voiceover narration to divulge background and character drama in an attempt to flesh out his characters to a greater extent than what the visuals offer, and it works well enough. Bay tries to infuse the voiceover narration with comedy as well. The second act features Lugo and company carrying out the crime and living off their spoils. And the third act is their downfall – so, in many ways this is structured a bit like a gangster film. The skeleton of the narrative structure works well and features an involving story, but Bay seems to think his material is brilliantly funny (and in moments, thanks to the fun performances, it is) so he tries to pack in as many comedic beats as he can, somewhat overloading scenes, resulting in the whole ridiculous tone becoming tired during the latter half of the second act.

Suddenly, without the comedy playing quite as well, the film starts to feel slow – because the narrative is not structured as a comedy, but rather as a character based crime drama. Yet, Bay wants the film to play as a comedy – specifically he wants the characters to be complete idiots who do things so that the audience can laugh at them. But, when the joke is not funny anymore where does that leave the narrative? Bay does a great job with making everything funny and entertaining in the beginning, but once the characters are set up and the narrative is in motion Bay’s pacing just does not work anymore because the storytelling is not efficient enough. Again, this is really a comedy, but it is structured and stylized as a crime drama and this disconnect hurts the film in the second half.

Stylistically, Pain & Gain sort of both embraces and denounces excess in American culture. It is odd because Bay seems to want the audience to relate to his characters and even feel sympathetic towards them, and he succeeds. The audience wants Lugo and company to get away with their crimes and likes them, which is ludicrous because the characters are completely unlikable.  Yet Bay completely sets them up to looks like total buffoons constantly, which undermines any connection that the viewer might have formed with the characters. Lugo is the epitome of someone who wants everything handed to them solely because they deserve it. He idolizes characters from gangster films who take what they want (never learning the lesson that they all lose in the end). He wants all the excesses that he sees around him – which are a lot as the film takes place in Miami – but does not want to earn anything; he just wants to have it now and to do that he must take it from someone who already has it.

The narrative suggests that being caught up in this sort of excess striving lifestyle does not work in the long run (like gangster films, Lugo burns brightly but for a moment and pays a big price for it). Yet, somewhat contradictory, Bay’s aesthetic style for the film is nothing but excess, almost to a vulgar level. It seems to celebrate and revel in the world of fast cars, hot women with big boobs, drugs, strip clubs, big houses on the water (even the retired police detective lives right on the water), and so on. It is as if Bay is championing Lugo and his aspirations, while also condemning him (but only because of his stupidity in the manner by which he carried out his crime). All these contradictions work against the film and the viewer’s enjoyment of it.

However, despite the issues with the film, Pain & Gain is at times very funny and quite enthralling. It just asks that the viewer leave behind their own morality and fully embrace the oversexed, bizarre, and comically ridiculous characters and world that Bay presents.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Michael Bay often makes mind-numbingly noisy and blatantly stupid films – but, he also directs films with a lot of energy and style. When it works, they make for an escapist spectacle entertainment. Pain & Gain falls into that category (and it is probably his best film since his first: Bad Boys – the only other Bay film to cost under twenty-five million), but still feels like it could have been better.

Composer Steve Jablonsky creates a decent score for the film, but it does not really stand out. The best musical moments come from the found music (like Gangsta’s Paradise). Visually, however, the film is very compelling, inviting the viewer into a word of excess juxtaposed with the crumbling sunbaked ghetto that surrounds it, looking on in envy. Ben Seresin’s cinematography and Jeffrey Beecroft’s production design seem to make a clear distinction between the world Lugo lives in and the one he aspires to be a part of, which in turn leads to the audience actually getting behind him as a character. They see his world – decrepit and sun saturated – and then see the nice part of Miami were his victim lives and it is beautiful. In a crazy way, it sort of plays into the class warfare that is quietly gathering steam in America (and around the world).

The characters in the film are slightly one dimensional, as Bay basically just parades them around to be laughed at (which is probably why he added so much internal character stuff in the voiceover narration). The performances, though, are very fun, with the actors giving themselves completely over to the ridiculousness.  Ken Jeong is very funny in a cameo role. Rebel Wilson, Bar Paly, and especially Tony Shalhoub are all good in support and bring some good humor with their performances. The leads, however, make the film. Anthony Mackie is fantastic. He plays Adrian in a much more grounded place, and yet is just as funny as the other two. Dwayne Johnson commits completely to his role as Paul, a cartoonish moron. He is funny, and thus serves his role, but is completely void of real relatable character moments. Mark Wahlberg, like Mackie, is very good as Lugo. His character is the most relatable and is given the most character moments, which he utilizes well. The audience should not like him, and yet they sort of do.

Summary & score: Pain & Gain is an extravaganza of ridiculousness – fun for a while, but eventually it wears thin as it goes on too long. 6/10

The Hangover Part II (2011) – Review

Review: The Hangover Part II is funny enough, and maybe would be a better film if The Hangover did not already exist, but it does – so this is not. Director Todd Phillips and Warner Bros. seem to be more interested in making money than a compelling narrative (when with a compelling narrative this still would have made the same money, if not more). The story and narrative structure are almost exactly the same as the first film, but Phillips has little regard for the characters and their growth – rather he is mostly concerned with exaggerated jokes that go over-the-top to make this seem even crazier than the first (and I guess we all saw this coming, but forgave it for the potential of another very funny and well done comedy). Sure there are moments of hilarity, but without the character work and strong narrative those moments do not really mean anything and exist on a plane outside narrative filmmaking, falling more under pure spectacle (and this film plays that way, which hurts it gravely). The first was so successful because it was innovative and had relatable and memorable characters. In part II the characters are mere caricatures of themselves (something that sadly seems to be common in sequels) driven by the expectations of fans of the first (with the “dance for me monkey” mentality, and there a monkey in the film!). They no longer feel like real people and thus the audience does not relate to them, and almost regardless of how funny the comedy is and how crazy the misadventures are the film will not be good without the connection with the audience. Phillip’s narrative is also sloppy and built around gags rather than character arcs. It is wholly unsatisfying and even mildly insulting to its audience, especially the third act. Phillips had the opportunity to make another great comedy, working with very funny people, which makes it all the more disappointing that the goal seemingly was to throw something together as close to the first as possible with the aim for dollars and not quality (and the average moviegoer would lap it up anyway, which they have). It almost plays a bit like a parody of itself, which could work given the right tone and crafting, but here it is more the result of shoddy filmmaking than seemingly a conscious effort. In a vacuum (the first film not existing), this would be a mediocre comedy with some really funny parts. As is, The Hangover Part II is just really disappointing and not very good.

Technical and acting achievements: Director Todd Phillips has an up and down track record. He has done some very funny stuff like Old School and The Hangover, but often he gets carried away with gags and jokes and forgets that the most important ingredient to any film is the characters (and secondly the narrative, both of which are weak here, but somewhat saved from sheer terribleness due to some funny stuff and performances).  Christopher Beck’s score is good and fits the tone of the film. Though, his work is somewhat overshadowed by the found-music pieces that fit very well. The cinematography by Lawrence Sher and the production design by Bill Brzeski are probably the best part of the whole film. Both do very good work (especially for a Hollywood comedy). The cast is a little iffier, in terms of good work. The main three actors (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis) are good and all are funny (if only their characters where actually given better material and growth), but due to the tired narrative they seemed to be going through the motions a bit (both in performance and their characters confronting the situations). Justin Baratha is not really given anything to do. The same goes for Jeffrey Tambor and Jamie Chung. Ken Jeong plays Mr. Chow as a cartoon version of himself (which you would think would be hard given how crazy he is in the first) and Paul Giamatti is completely uninterested in his performance (probably due to it being poorly written) and it shows as he just phones it in.

Summary & score: All in all The Hangover Part II is a failure (unless you are Warner Bros. and have a big hit on your hands without much effort). Hopefully the third will be better (but I am not holding my breath). 5/10