Jungle Cruise - What If Werner Herzog Made a Disney Adventure?

It’s been a while, but my seemingly yearly burnout has come to an end, and I’m writing about movies again. I don’t technically own Jungle Cruise, but I do have Disney+, which the film will eventually be a part of without an extra fee. Also, thanks to the studios realizing that digital screeners are a good idea, I was actually able to watch this at home rather than drive three hours to the nearest theater providing an advance screening, so it inspired me to write about a new movie for a change. Here are my thoughts.

A Sleepy Movie

Jungle Cruise is the latest attempt by Disney to turn one of its famous rides into a movie franchise a la Pirates of the Caribbean. Though it’s unlikely that Jungle Cruise will turn into the unwieldy juggernaut that the Pirates films became, it is still a very solid, and very predictable and plain, summer film. 

Predictable and plain are not typically considered a good thing when it comes to film, but in this case it was oddly refreshing. Jungle Cruise attempts to be a modern twist on classic adventure films of the 1940s. It’s a classic adventure in that the story is very simple. In 1916, a doctor (Emily Blunt) enlists the help of a con artist boat captain (Dwayne Johnson) to navigate the treacherous Amazon River in search of a fabled tree that has flowers said to be able to cure any ailment. Of course, other nefarious parties (an evil German [because why not?] and cursed conquistadors) want to find the tree, as well. Adventure, romance, action, and hijinks ensue.

The modern twist of it all lies only in some minor character elements. Emily Blunt is a woman who dares to wear pants! Which is such a big deal that “Pants” becomes her name for much of the film. Another character is gay...in 1916! And...that’s pretty much it. These elements are a bit gimmicky, but they do add another layer to a simple film. The homosexual reveal is easily the most emotional moment in the film. And the misogyny of the time is rightfully mocked (a historical society has no issue with the idea of 400-year-old cursed conquistadors [I really like typing the phrase “cursed conquistadors”], but is outraged at the idea of a female tribal chief). These elements don’t elevate Jungle Cruise beyond being a simple adventure, but they are a nice touch.

What makes all of this oddly refreshing is that Jungle Cruise is as relaxing as its title suggests. This movie is the cinematic equivalent of floating down a river. Certainly, that could be a negative experience for anyone seeking more from the film, but if you’re in this for a couple hours of distraction and not much else, then it’s exactly what you want from a summer movie. The best comparison would be to the National Treasure movies. Much like those Nicolas Cage films, there’s nothing about Jungle Cruise that’s annoying enough to hate, and even though the story isn’t as interesting (I just prefer American history, even when it’s mostly made up, to be more interesting than jungle curses), it’s just entertaining enough to enjoy.

Jungle Cruise is a good example of a sleeping movie. If you’re like me, you like to put on a movie or TV show as you fall asleep of an evening. I always try to pick something interesting enough to watch, but simple enough to fall asleep to. If I put on Aguirre, the Wrath of God at midnight, it’ll keep me up for the entire running time. But if I put on Jungle Cruise (once it’s available on Disney+ without a fee), I’ll be asleep before they even get on the boat, and that is the kind of movie I need Jungle Cruise to be.

A Werner Herzog Disney  Film

Jungle Cruise appeals to me beyond its simplicity. I’m a sucker for boat-trips-on-a-river movies. Apocalypse Now, Aguirre, and Fitzcarraldo are among my favorite films of all time. I guess it’s the sense of exploring the unknown, but the visuals of the dense, dangerous river and forest coupled with main characters on dangerous and/or insane quests just hit the cinematic sweet spot for me. That’s why Jungle Cruise is such a fun oddity to me. It features the plot points of one of the Werner Herzog films (Aguirre and Fitzcarraldo), but rather than focus on insanity or blind determination as those films do, this film is instead a family-friendly adventure. It’s as if Werner Herzog made a film for Disney.

Herzog is one of the most varied filmmakers of all time because he is interested in humanity in all its forms. It’s not impossible that he would make a fun Disney film, but it is very unlikely. Because of that, Jungle Cruise will always be an interesting watch for me as I compare it to Herzog’s river movies, and wonder what he would do differently. I like to imagine that he would try to insert more dark humor and a bit more of a focus on insanity. For instance, Dwayne Johnson’s character (SPOILERS from here on out), revealed to be one of the undead, cursed conquistadors, could be portrayed as genuinely insane due to his centuries-long life on the river rather than the pun-spewing con artist he is in the film. Johnson is a stronger actor than he is given credit for, and when allowed to go a bit crazy, he can turn in a memorable performance. Instead, he’s just the Rock on a boat.

But maybe Herzog wouldn’t have been meant to direct such a film. He has turned up as an actor here and there, most notably as a villain in Jack Reacher and The Mandalorian. I liked Jesse Plemons’s manic performance as the crazed German prince in this film (even if I somehow missed just why he is crazed aside from the need to turn any German villain in a film set in the early 20th century into a crazy person), but imagine Werner Herzog in the role instead. He would be much more menacing, and he can seem crazy without going big. I just picture Herzog talking to a bee (as Plemons does late in the film), and I think of the missed opportunity.

Herzog in The Mandalorian is probably the most Disney we will ever get, but at least Jungle Cruise provided me enough to wonder what could have been.

Random Thoughts/Favorite Quotes

Didn’t expect this to start with an orchestral version of Metallica’s “Nothing Else Matters.”

I prefer Werner Herzog’s story of Aguirre.

This would be a very different movie if those swords Emily Blunt knocked down at the beginning killed those dudes, but then Jesse Plemons wouldn’t have anyone to kill…

Within the first ten minutes I got some Aguirre (because, well, Aguirre is a character), The Mummy (because of the academic love interest with a dipshit brother), Pirates of the Caribbean (because of the curse), The Lost City of Z (because of the Amazon and the historical society stuff), and Fitzcarraldo (because of the boat) vibes.

“Might be me. Warm, liquid fear.”

That jaguar scene looked bad, and was pretty fucking pointless. How does fighting a jaguar prove that the Rock can successfully navigate the Amazon? I’m glad it’s revealed that he set the whole thing up since the fight was so ridiculous, but it definitely felt like tacked on shit because there hadn’t been enough “action” yet in the film.

Is Paul Giammatti just the go-to now when a film needs an extra, unnecessary villain?

"I don't trust you as far as I can throw you. Which clearly isn't very far, because you are huge." At over an hour in, this is only the second time anyone has mentioned the gigantic stature of the Rock. I kind of like that they mostly ignore it, but it's also more plausible to believe in a curse that turns a conquistador into a bee monster than it is to ignore what the Rock looks like compared to other humans.

Even as a snake monster, this Aguirre isn't as crazy as Kinski's version.

Jesse Plemons is having a very good time playing the evil German.

I honestly don’t understand how the flowers at the end of the film work exactly, and why they can’t just get a ton of them. But, in the film’s defense, I kind of shut down during some of the exposition in the later part of the movie.

..

"Hercules" Is No "Conan," but Hey, What Is?

Hercules

"Rahhh! I challenge you to take this even remotely seriously!"

Hercules brings Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s career full circle in a way.  Johnson’s first starring role was in The Scorpion King, another film about an ancient warrior.  The Scorpion King was less than impressive, and Johnson’s film career didn’t really take off until he started piggy-backing onto existing franchises (G.I. Joe, Fast Five) in recent years.  Now he’s back to headlining a story about a mythic hero, and the results are…well, all right.

Hercules has been receiving a surprising pass from most of the nation’s critics (as of this writing, it was at 61% on Rotten Tomatoes) mainly because a lot of people collectively decided to lower their expectations, which usually doesn’t happen with critics.  Perhaps it’s easy to lighten up on this film because it makes fun of the idea of a myth, allowing it to be much more fun than that other crappy Hercules movie that was deadly serious.  Also, Dwayne Johnson simply looks out of place.  He looks silly with the long hair, beard, and warrior getup.  He is utterly unbelievable when he’s removed from a modern setting.  Finally, Brett Ratner directed it, and everyone has accepted that he makes mindless, kind-of fun movies.

I’m with the critics who gave this a pass.  I enjoy Dwayne Johnson’s persona, and it was refreshing to see them mess with the myth rather than try to replicate it.  The characters stop short of winking at the audience, but everyone appears to be having fun and/or picking up an easy paycheck (I’m looking at you, John Hurt and Ian McShane).  It’s easy to laugh along with the cast at the lighter moments.  More importantly, it allows you to laugh at some of the ridiculous physical moments as well (The Rock throwing a horse comes to mind).  Overall, it made the film worth a watch. 

Although I am giving this film a pass, that doesn’t mean I didn’t have some major issues with it.  As I was watching, it occurred to me that this was Dwayne Johnson’s attempt to make a Conan the Barbarian film a la Schwarzenegger.  Hercules in this film is simply a mercenary, much like Conan, who has to help a king.  Along the way he learns about being a hero and blah, blah, blah.  Hercules isn’t truly worthy of comparison to that film because of a few key mistakes.  It’s not dark enough.  If the film decides to abandon the myth, then they should plant the film firmly in reality.  Instead, Hercules seems to be all powerful through sheer luck.  He never gets in battle formation and simply hangs out in front of the army, clubbing whoever walks near him.  Even though he teaches warfare in the film, he showcases no knowledge aside from “Smash bad guys!”  All of this would be fine if the action was brutal, but it’s all bloodlessly cartoonish and a bit boring.  Director Ratner could have easily fixed this by showcasing how strong Hercules is, mythic or not.  Don’t show a quick shot of him swinging a club followed by a faceless goon collapsing.  Add some oomph to it!  When Hercules hits someone with that club, it should be impressive, but he appears to be no better than any of the other warriors onscreen. 

I’m breaking my own rule of critique by focusing so much of my negativity on a comparison to a similar film, but it’s hard not to when there was true potential here.  That other Hercules movie (the one with a guy named Lutz in it) had no promise and thankfully disappeared quickly.  (In fact, I think this film made a joke about the title of the film at one point, though I’m not sure if that was coincidental or intentional.)  I’m still waiting for The Rock to fulfill his Schwarzenegger destiny, and this was the latest chance for him to do so.  I guess I just need to accept that the age of Schwarzenegger & co. has passed, and it is never coming back (perhaps this is best evidenced in the increasingly silly interactions of those stars in The Expendables franchise).  It’s probably more likely that The Rock will simply join that franchise than headline his own great action film.  Oh well, I can always go back and re-watch those vastly superior films from the ‘80s and '90s.

Of course, all of this might just be me showing my age.  Perhaps a younger audience will watch this and respond to it the same way I responded to Conan the Barbarian the first time I saw it.  I sure hope not, though.  Regardless, Hercules isn’t an awful movie or anything.  It’s forgettable, light fun with a cast much more impressive than it deserves.  You won’t want your money back when it’s over, but you will forget you saw it by the end of the year. 

Hercules receives a:

Pain & Gatsby

*Pain & Gain entered and left the theaters without much fanfare, but now that it's out on video (along with The Great Gatsby) I wanted to compare the two films.  Major SPOILERS for both films follow.

Something occurred to me as I was watching Pain & Gain on DVD: the Michael Bay-directed Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne Johnson movie is surprisingly comparable to The Great Gatsby.  I don't simply mean the Baz Luhrmann overly stylized Gatsby, either.  I mean the actual novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald.  (For my purposes, however, I will include that recent adaptation because it helps my argument.) 

Let's start with the American dream which Wahlberg's character, Daniel Lugo, talks about in the film (ironically telling a judge that there are no shortcuts to it).  Also, the tagline of Pain & Gain is "Their American Dream Is Bigger Than Yours."  In my initial review, I compared Pain & Gain to Scarface because of the drugs and blatant criminality of most of the characters along with the perversion of the American dream (and Lugo mentions Scarface as a personal hero).  I still think that comparison is apt since both stories are essentially about how wrong you can go in your pursuit of what you think the American dream is.  Gatsby fits in because that story is about the death of that dream. 

Jay Gatsby is a character that rises from nothing and makes a fortune through illegal means.  His pursuit goes beyond finance and into unreachable territory as he strives to recreate a past love with Daisy that has moved on.  He sees a green light as a metaphor for this unreachable dream.  His failure to reclaim what was once a beautiful moment shows that the American dream in general is unachievable when it becomes an idea rather than a tangible goal. 

Daniel Lugo is not after some lost love in Pain & Gain, but his downfall is just the same.  He simply holds money and status in such a high regard that he is incapable of sustaining it.  Becoming the man on the riding lawnmower was his tangible goal, but once he reached it, he realized it didn't really give him what he wanted: a feeling of legitimacy.  It seems cheap to make the comparison (but get used to it, this is going to be filled with cheap comparisons), but Lugo's green light was a riding lawnmower.  Once Gatsby had Daisy, he seemed to realize that the green light represented nothing now that he had seemed to achieve his dream.  As soon as Lugo, now Tom Lawn, gets on that lawnmower, he should have been content, instead he wanted more.  The lawnmower had become, simply, a lawnmower.

The similarities between Gatsby and Lugo don't end with the American dream.  Both characters get their money illegally, Gatsby through bootlegging and Lugo from fraud.  They both change their names when they gain their wealth.  James Gatz becomes Jay Gatsby.  Daniel Lugo becomes Tom Lawn.  Say what you will about Lugo's improvised name, at least it's vast departure from his real name, unlike Gatz to Gatsby...  They also seem to be equally charismatic.  Lugo may be much more obviously full of crap than Gatsby, but he seems to easily fool the people onscreen. 

Step aside, DiCaprio...let Marky Mark handle this.

If Lugo is Gatsby, then who is Nick Carraway?  Since Nick acts as the storyteller of Gatsby, this is difficult as nearly every single character in Pain & Gain serves as narrator at some point.  If you look to Nick as the moral compass of Gatsby, though, then I suppose Paul (Dwayne Johnson) fits best.  He appears to be the voice of reason early on ("You can't just kidnap a guy and take his stuff! That is so illegal!") and becomes corrupted by Lugo.  As an ex-con, he is much more susceptible to corruption than Carraway was, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is somewhat seduced by Lugo's charm and friendship only to end up being used, just as Gatsby used Nick. 

This is where the film version of Gatsby helps out a bit more.  In that adaptation, Nick is telling the story from an asylum, apparently suffering a breakdown caused (at least partly) by alcohol addiction.  Paul is a recovering alcohol/drug addict who falls off the wagon because of his association with Lugo.  So Gatsby turned Nick into a drunk, and Lugo nudged Paul back into addiction. 

Paul is a much easier fit as Nick when you factor in his newly found faith.  His gullibility and well-meaning attitude is a dead ringer for Nick.  Religion does not play much of a factor in Gatsby, but Nick is certainly seen as the slightly innocent character among a crew of despicable people.  (Of course, he's telling the story, so he comes across as the good person.)  Paul seems that way, too...at first.  And finally, there is one more side comparison with Paul as Nick.  In the novel, Nick has a drunken evening and at one point ends up bedside with a photographer.  It is not clearly explained, and some have speculated a homosexual interpretation to the passage.  Paul has his run-in with homosexuality, as well.  His priest/landlord hits on him, and Paul seems enthralled by all of the homosexual sex toys in the warehouse.  Sure, most of the stuff in Pain & Gain is played for juvenile homophobic laughs, but it makes sense on a story level when compared to Gatsby.

Yup, dead ringer for Tobey Maguire.

The wheels don't fall off of this comparison once you move past the similarities between the two main characters, but it definitely starts to get low on gas.  But I'll continue anyway as I did find a few interesting similarities.

Lugo as Gatsby and Paul as Nick keeps things nice and neat, but when trying to find other character crossovers, it gets messy.  I suppose Victor Kershaw could be Tom and his money could be Daisy since Lugo is at odds with him and tries to take away what is his.  And Myrtle could be the stripper that Lugo "gives" to Paul, but that doesn't really work since she should be with Victor in that comparison...and who's Wilson?  See what I mean?  But there is a clear commonality with cars.  In both stories, a character gets hit by a car near the end: Myrtle in Gatsby, and Lugo in Pain.  They are different circumstances and characters and all, but still...

The point of both Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, however, is quite clear and nearly identical.  Pain warns the audience of seeking the fast way to the dream and shows that the dream isn't what it's cracked up to be anyway.  Gatsby is about the death of the dream in very much the same way as Gatsby dies in his pursuit, and Nick is left jaded (and committed, in the movie). 

Putting an end to this rambling comparison, I just found it interesting that a film many people have found forgettable, pointless, offensive, or simply awful can quite easily be compared to what some call the great American novel.  Both Pain & Gain and the recent adaptation of The Great Gatsby nearly stylize the point out of each story, but it's still there.  And while Pain & Gain will never be considered a great work of art, at the very least Michael Bay's latest deserves a second look, which is more than can be said about his Transformers series.

"Furious 6" Is Just as Stupid, Insane, and Awesome as You Can Imagine

Directed by Justin Lin, written by Chris Morgan, starring Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Luke Evans, Gina Carrano, and Michelle Rodriguez - Rated PG-13

 

 

Ha ha...so stupid, but so great.

 

 

 

 

 

Having recently broken my “no comedy reviews” rule, I inevitably began to think about how pointless a lot of reviews are when it comes to summer movies and sequels.  I suppose it’s because I have to go from reviewing The Hangover Part III to Fast & Furious 6 (simply titled Furious 6 in the actual film).  How could reviews matter when it comes to two series that have gone on this long?  This could explain why I’m writing this review over a week after I watched this movie.  The Fast franchise is just as hard and pointless to review as comedies.  So I don’t think it was any loss that I didn’t get around to writing the review until now.  I’m just going to use this space to go into detail about why I love this movie for all its stupidity and awesomeness (and possibly get into whether or not embracing stupidity makes it okay).  If you still want some kind of normal review, here’s this: If you liked Fast 5, how could you not like Furious 6?

 

Now I’ll get into why I like this crap (and I’ll probably spoil some of the action scenes so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you might want to skip out on this review, but honestly, why are you reading a Furious 6 review a week and a half after it came out when you haven’t seen it yet?).  This franchise is so stupid I can’t help but love what it has become.  The sixth installment is similar to the fifth in that’s it’s Ocean’s 11 with less famous actors.  It makes little to no sense for these characters to come together a second time.  They are all millionaires now.  Paul Walker has an infant for crying out loud!  Why would everyone just drop everything and put their lives at risk? 

 

I know that Michelle Rodriguez is back (ugh) so that’s why Vin Diesel has to go.  And Paul Walker has to help family even if it means putting his own new family at severe risk.  (Bonus point to the writers for making Jordana Brewster the anti-Adrian to Walker’s Rocky by insisting that he leaves her and their child to go risk his life before Walker can even discuss it with her.)  But why do all the others drop what they’re doing for this?  Pardons?  They all seemed to be doing quite fine without them, but whatever. 

 

It’s actually great that there is little to no reluctance for the crew to get back together.  Who wants to spend a half hour watching all these characters we already know (or at least sort of remember) slowly get back together?  We all just want to see fast cars and ridiculous action, and Furious 6 does not disappoint.

 

Fast 5 had some idiotic and awesome action scenes, but somehow Furious 6 surpasses it, at least in idiocy.  Forget the tank and car driving through a plane that you saw in the previews; this film features Vin Diesel slingshotting himself from the hood of a speeding car to fly across the lanes of a suspension bridge to catch Michelle Rodriguez in mid-air after she had been tossed from a tank that had suddenly been anchored by a wrecked car that Walker had attached to it.  Diesel, of course, catches her and they fly to safety by slamming into the windshield of a stopped car.  That might be one of the dumbest bits of action that was meant to be taken at least a little seriously that I have ever seen.  I was laughing aloud during the whole sequence, but I cracked up the most when Rodriguez later says, “How did you know that car would be there to break our fall?”  Are you kidding me?  That was the crazy part, Michelle? 

 

As idiotic as that scene was, it was still pretty awesome.  And that sums up this film: Awesome stupidity.  This is a film that can’t allow simple conversation to happen without tossing in a gunshot or making the camera swing a 360 around the actors a la Tony Scott.  In other words, the filmmakers know what their audience wants to see. 

 

The Rock and Diesel were enemies last time, but now that they’re on the same side, we definitely needed to see them team up for a fight, right?  That part, along with the jokes about The Rock using baby oil, was great.  Most of the hand to hand fights in general were very good, most notably a lengthy fight between Rodriguez and Gina Carrano.  Of course, the cars take center stage at times.  This time around, the villains use these F1 cars that can flip regular cars around with ease.  Any scenes featuring these cars were pretty cool.  Oh, and The Rock just deciding out of nowhere to jump out of a moving vehicle (that he was driving) from a bridge to the top of a car below was hilarious…and awesome. 

 

Furious 6 is more than just stupidity and fun, though.  Director Justin Lin (who is unfortunately leaving the franchise) films action as good as anyone these days.  He doesn’t have a distinct style or anything, but you get to see how massive and amazing the action is.  Lin doesn’t indulge in slo-mo or add CG to every bit of action, and it is always very clear what is happening onscreen.  He leaves every dime on the screen and the film is better for it.  Lin’s direction is the opposite of what Walker’s character says during one of the film’s action scenes: “We do what we do best: improvise.”  I’ll allow that the decisions the characters make are not thought out at all, and they basically wing it throughout.  Improvisation in an action film is very complicated, though.  It’s one thing for a group of writers to sit around and say, “Wouldn’t it be awesome if…” and another to actually film those ideas.  Hats off to Lin for taking some crazy ideas and making them happen.

 

As condescending as I’ve been about Furious 6, it really was one of the most entertaining movies I’ve seen this year.  It’s okay for an over-the-top action movie to be stupid throughout as long as it’s entertaining.  I had a good time watching this movie with my friends, and that’s all a film needs to do to be considered a success in my book.

Michael Bay's Surprising and Darkly Funny Return to the 90s

Directed by Michael Bay, written by Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, starring Mark Wahlberg, Anthony Mackie, Dwayne Johnson, Ed Harris, and Tony Shalhoub - Rated R

 

 

This is a comedy the Kurgan would like, which says all kinds of messed up things about me...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It’s been a long time since director Michael Bay made a film that didn’t involve giant fighting robots, and it’s about time. Nothing against the Transformers movies, but I’ve always felt that Bay could’ve stopped after the first film and just produced the next few. Instead Bay stayed on for the whole trilogy, and he’s even starting up a new Transformers movie for his next directing job. So Pain & Gain, unfortunately, is only a pit stop for Bay between robot movies.

 

I say “unfortunately” because Pain & Gain is an entertaining and interesting film from a director who had become quite predictable over the years, and it would be nice if this became the norm for Bay. The film, based on one of those true stories that prove reality is indeed stranger than fiction, is dark comedy at its best: disturbing.

 

Reviewing a comedy is tricky, and I’ve actually come to the point that I will not even review most comedies because it’s all about the viewer’s sense of humor. But Pain & Gain is more than just a comedy. The true story angle sets it apart.

 

Pain & Gain is based on the series of articles of the same name written by Miami Times reporter Pete Collins. Of course, true stories get changed as characters are merged, dates change, and events are altered. But screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely stay surprisingly faithful to the basic outline of the events. If you’re a stickler for the details, just read the articles online; it’s a fascinating read and, at times, even crazier than the movie’s version of events.

 

The too crazy to believe true story is a very dark, twisted series of events. (Stop reading now if you don’t want the story slightly spoiled.) In the mid-90s a personal trainer/scam artist named Daniel Lugo, along with assorted friends and acquaintances, kidnapped a local Miami businessman and forced him to sign over all of his wealth. Emboldened by this first “success” the group tries again with disastrous results. That doesn’t sound all that crazy until you come across the finer points in the story. Some of the actions of the people involved defy belief. Police officers ignore blatant evidence of the kidnapping, a man survives being blown up and ran over, body parts are barbecued out in the open, etc. And that’s all stuff that actually happened. Toss in some movie-only craziness involving a sex toy warehouse, cocaine, and a severed toe and you’re in for some wacky moments.

 

That could be a problem for some viewers. Not only is this a grisly story, but it’s also told for laughs. Actual people died. When you keep that in mind, it’s hard to laugh. Maybe I’m a terrible person, but I found Pain & Gain quite funny, even more so as things got dark and twisted in the end. As a dark comedy, this film is a success…for people with my sense of humor, anyway. That said, dark comedies are extremely hit and miss depending on the viewer, so I can understand why some people might hate it.

 

It might also rub people the wrong way because Daniel Lugo, played by Mark Wahlberg, is treated almost like the hero of the film. He’s a guy who just wants the American dream, which, to him, means being buff and rich. He has the buff part down, but the rich part is something he has to take. I did have issues with this guy being treated as the protagonist at first. Then I remembered Scarface and many other gangster films in which the audience is kind of expected to root for the “bad guy.” It’s just that this bad guy is based on a real terrible person. The American dream aspect of the movie makes up for that, however. Scarface spawned an entire subculture that glorifies a twisted idea of the American dream. To be fair, that’s not the point of Scarface, but many fans of that film have failed to notice. With Pain & Gain, there is no mistaking that Daniel Lugo is an idiot and someone to be ridiculed. He is a sociopath whose actions make clear that the American dream can be quite dangerous if interpreted a certain way. Will everyone walk away from the film with that message? No, but I doubt that you’ll hear people quoting Lugo as often as people quote Tony Montana.

 

Daniel Lugo may not go down as one of cinema’s great antiheros, but that doesn’t mean Wahlberg does a bad job. He’s perfect for the role of a muscle-bound optimist. He carries the film with ease, but his cohorts provide the most fun. Anthony Mackie cracked me up constantly with his fast rants about getting buff. And Dwayne Johnson was the best part of the film because of his meltdown in the second half. He seems to be in a completely different movie than the rest of the cast the last hour, and it’s hilarious. The rest of the cast is superb, as well, with Ed Harris, Tony Shalhoub, Rob Corddry, and Rebel Wilson making appearances. Even Ken Jeong, who I find nearly unbearable these days, had me laughing as an obnoxious self-help guru.

 

Add Michael Bay’s direction to these proceedings and you’re left with the most surprisingly enjoyable film of the year thus far. Bay could’ve destroyed this movie easily if he had turned it into an action fest, but he didn’t. Instead, he basically made his version of Tony Scott’s Domino. The similarities between the two films are hard to ignore. Both are based on unbelievable true stories in the mid-90s and are helmed by directors who often let style get in the way of substance. Bay has made the better film because Pain & Gain takes the more comedic tone. Domino attempted to be relatively serious, and it was all too crazy to care that much about. Pain & Gain has a story that could be taken very seriously, but it would be very hard not to laugh at some of the true moments. Thankfully, Bay and company embraced that. Does he still whip the camera around too often and employ too much slow-mo? Yeah, but trust me, the action and plot are much easier to follow in this film than in his previous Transformers work.

 

Despite my eventual enjoyment, I was on the fence about Pain & Gain the first hour or so. There were far too many characters with voice-over. The anachronistic bits, like the Taco Bell box, a wireless videogame controller, etc. took me out of it. It just seemed to be a mess of a film. Somehow in that last hour it all made sense. It’s still a mess of a film, but the characters are train-wrecks, so how could the plot not get messy? The true story is convoluted, so why wouldn’t the movie be as well? The messiness of it is what got me laughing consistently by the end of the film. It was equal parts hilarity and befuddlement. That’s entertainment to me. Just try not to dwell on the fact that most of the stuff in this movie actually happened.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

While I am quite tired of Bay's now obligatory camera-doing-a-360-through-two-rooms gimmick, I laughed a lot at the absurdity of the two vastly different actions taking place.  On one side, Marky Mark is killing a guy.  On the other, The Rock is putting on a push-up display while C&C Music Factory blares. 

 

Speaking of The Rock, shouldn't he have been limping a bit more since he was missing a toe?  Or is coke that powerful?  Or is it simply that The Rock is that powerful?

 

The anachronisms bothered me, but I still dug some of the 90s elements of the movie.  The car phones, the above-mentioned music, etc.  Although, for the most part, this film felt like it took place in present day. 

"Fast Five"

Fast Five - Directed by Justin Lin, written by Chris Morgan, starring Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Jordana Brewster, and Dwayne Johnson - Rated PG-13

Bring on five more...?

The Fast/Furious franchise is one of the most unlikely properties to still be up and running…and stronger than ever. The first one was fun in an idiotic, Point Break with cars kind of way. The second one was just sort of there. The third was a failed attempt to reboot the series in Tokyo. The fourth one worked in a nostalgic sense because it reunited the original cast. What is the point of a fifth movie? And once there’s a fifth film, isn’t a series entering parody territory? Not necessarily.

Fast Five works because the series has changed into this hybrid of a car movie and a heist movie a la Ocean’s 11. That may seem like a bad fit or even a goofy one, but it ends up being plenty of fun. Part of that is the cast, which consists of pretty much every character from past films (save the ones that died), but the bigger part is the ambition of the film. Who would have thought that one of the most over the top, entertaining action movies in recent memory would be Fast Five?

All surprise aside, Fast Five delivers exactly what its audience wants. First off, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker are back, along with Jordana Brewster. Those familiar faces instantly make you recall the first film, which most fans consider to be the best. The addition of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson should be enough to excite the action fan in you if you’re not a fan of the original cast.

The story of Fast Five plays out in Rio. Dom, Brian, and Mia are on the lam after busting Dom out of federal custody. While in Brazil, they figure if they steal enough money from the local drug czar then they can disappear forever. To steal all of the money the trio needs the help of pretty much everyone they’ve ever dealt with before. Since the gang is so high profile, the FBI has sent in their heavy hitter, Hobbs (Johnson), to bring them all in.

Fast Five is all about going bigger. The film begins with a ridiculous action set piece and never lets up. Vehicles slam into speeding trains. Super-expensive cars fly out of said train only to then drive right off a cliff. That vague description only covers the first twenty minutes or so. Fast Five is nothing if not relentless, in a good way. The movie, though clocking in a bit long at two plus hours, manages to move at a brisk pace, never slowing down long enough for you to start questioning the logic of anything happening onscreen.

Logic doesn’t apply to this film. That’s not a problem. If the film had been filled with CG action scenes, it would have been a harder pill to swallow. But thankfully, Fast Five keeps most of its action practical…or at least it looks practical and that’s all that matters. In a movie about cars, you want to see real cars in the middle of real stunts. Fast Five certainly delivers on that point.

The non-automobile action is decent, as well. A major draw for this film was the showdown between the two hulking bald dudes: Johnson and Diesel. Johnson dwarfs Diesel and makes him look like a child, by the way. It’s still a pretty good matchup and their fight scenes play out like something out of a Godzilla movie.

Dwayne Johnson is a perfect fit for a movie like this. He gets to tell people what to do, stare people down, wear Under Armor, and sweat profusely, all while sporting a massive goatee. In other words, he gets to play The Rock…with a goatee. And there’s nothing wrong with that. There is a little something wrong with that Southern accent he threw in a few times, but it’s forgivable. The rest of the cast doesn’t fare so well. Paul Walker is still the weak link of the series. He’s okay in the action scenes, but when he has to play a person with emotions or a personality he fails more often than not. Diesel holds most of the film together with his odd…charisma? But the guy still mumbles most of his lines and looks painfully awkward in the lighthearted scenes. Fortunately, the rest of the cast handles the comedic relief. Some of it is a bit lowbrow (literally toilet humor at one point), but it’s all in good fun.

It’s a bit odd to claim enjoyment for a film with a “five” in the title, but you shouldn’t judge a movie by its title. Sure, this movie looks like a Dodge commercial at times, but isn’t product placement warranted in a car movie? Are the two leads mediocre? Yeah, but they have developed some odd kind of chemistry that works. Should you ask any of these questions about Fast Five? Nope. Check it out for a crazy good time.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

How many people were killed in that vault sequence? Sure, they went to a lot of trouble to show everyone getting out of the way just in time, but there must have been scores of innocent people who were killed...and all for the greed of Vin Diesel and his cronies.

It's a good thing Brazil has all those superfast, cool cop cars…

The whole movie is a bit ridiculous, but the most unrealistic aspect: Vin Diesel kicking The Rock's ass. C'mon! (That last word is in italics to show that it should read as if Gob Bluth is saying it.)

One thing that put on the positive side for the last Fast movie was the fact that they killed off Michelle Rodriguez, whose character annoyed me to no end. Then, in an after credits sequence, it's revealed that she's actually still alive somehow...

...I instantly dislike the next one now.

"Faster"

Faster - Directed by George Tillman Jr., written by Tony Gayton and Joe Gayton, starring Dwayne Johnson, Billy Bob Thornton, and Oliver Jackson-Cohen - Rated PG-13

It's not a glorious return to action for Dwayne Johnson, but at least he's trying.

Do you remember back in 2003 when The Rock (Dwayne Johnson these days) starred in The Rundown? There was a scene in that enjoyable action comedy in which Arnold Schwarzenegger tells The Rock, “Have fun.” That was Schwarzenegger handing the action star reins to Johnson. I love Arnold Schwarzenegger and I was wondering who could possibly fill his void once he entered politics. The Rock was the perfect candidate. Then something terrible happened: for some reason The Rock became Dwayne Johnson, star of kids’ movies and inspirational football movies, and even one that’s both (I’m looking at you, The Game Plan). It was troubling to see all of these decidedly non-action films until finally, Faster was released and Johnson was back in action territory.

Is Faster a triumphant and glorious return to action, though? Not really, but it’ll do for now. The setup had plenty of potential for awesome action. Johnson plays an ex-con out to avenge his brother’s death. The character is pretty one-note in that all he wants to do is kill every single person who had any involvement in his brother’s death. He’s so one-note that he is never given a proper name and is only known as “Driver.” That’s fine; I don’t need to know much about Driver, aside from the fact that he wants bloody vengeance.

Faster does deliver on the vengeance. The film features quick and brutal action and it operates at a brisk pace. It’s also a very loud movie. When a gun is fired, you know it. In a pop culture that features constant gunfire it’s nice to see a film that still regards gunfire as a jarring experience. This is all put together in a 1970s vengeance film style that made the entire film an enjoyable, visceral experience. Faster probably won’t be remembered in the long run, but it’s not a stretch to say that some people will recall the opening credit sequence set to a 70s song or some of the images (such as Johnson, head out of frame, holding a gun near the head of a preacher). Overall, though, I look for this film to be forgotten.

Faster is fine for right now, though, as long as you don’t look too closely at it. My friends and I took this film apart piece by piece on the way back from the theatre. I don’t want to spoil anything, but there are plenty of moments in this film that make little or no sense. The ridiculousness of some character traits and motivations actually made me enjoy the film more. Certain characters as a whole, however, could have used some work…or less work, as it were.

Dwayne Johnson is not alone in this film. After Driver’s first kill, a troubled detective (Billy Bob Thornton) known only as “Cop,” starts looking for him. Thornton seems to be sleepwalking through the clichéd role, emphasis on the cliché. This cop character is a few weeks from retirement, is estranged from his wife, doesn’t connect with his son, and is a drug addict. It would’ve been better if the screenwriters had stuck with one cliché and just ran with it, rather than lumping all of this stuff together. Thornton’s sleepwalking actually makes sense because of the drug addict aspect, but I didn’t think he did anything special with the role.

Driver and Cop seem like enough characters for a film like this, but unfortunately, Faster didn’t know when to stop. A third character (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), known as “Killer,” was tossed in there and the lacking character development for the other two leads got kicked into overdrive. Killer is a British thrill seeker who overcame issues with his legs as a child. He also has commitment issues with his girlfriend. He talks with a therapist and is on medication. Why would you give a nameless character such detail? Isn’t the point of the generic titles that these guys are simple and determined? That’s true for Driver, but the other two needed some names. Or better yet, they needed less character traits or, in Killer’s case, should have been cut from the movie completely.

The attention to the third character is what disappointed me the most. I really could have done without the second character, much less a third. I wanted Dwayne Johnson stomping through nearly every scene creating havoc with each step. I only got one third of that. But that one third was enough for me, mainly because I’ve been waiting for a Dwayne Johnson action movie for so long that a subpar movie is decent just for existing.

Faster exists therefore it’s worth checking out. It’s mostly forgettable and terribly uneven in the character department, but The Rock is in it and it’s not meant for children and no one is inspired to play football in it, so there’s always that.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Strange how Tom Berenger is listed as part of the main cast yet his role can best be described as a cameo. I liked his one scene, though.

Dwayne Johnson is largely a mute in this film. He finally starts talking a bit in the second half. I'm not sure which character I liked more. It's not that Johnson can't handle dialogue, he truly can, but I found him much more imposing as the silent killer rather than the softer talker.

Speaking of killing, what was up with the fight in the strip club? First off, what kind of a strip club has some sleeping elderly man as a bathroom attendant? Maybe he's an old friend or something, that's fine, I guess. But as for the fight itself, it really looked like a death scene when the camera zoomed in on the stabbed man's face. That's why I figured Driver didn't finish the kill. Then I thought that Driver had realized he hadn't killed him and had had a change of heart after calling the victim's son. No, he decides to drive to the hospital to kill the guy on the operating table. I don't know, my explanation isn't doing the strangeness of the scene justice. I still can't figure out exactly what the point of it all was other than there needed to be an excuse to have Driver and Cop have a shootout in a hospital corridor.

After The Big Lewbowski, it should be against the law to use "Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)" in a movie ever again.

Killer's quick marriage, then target practice honeymoon was easily the dumbest and most pointless part of the entire movie.

I'm guessing the writers introduced the strip club victim's son (who sounded way too calm for someone who just found out his father has been shot on the operating table, by the way) so they could set up something like the potential (though extremely unlikely) Kill Bill sequel in which the avenger has vengeance taken out upon them. Can't wait for Faster 2: The Quickening or maybe they'll just go with Fastest.

Regarding sequels, Johnson's next movie is Fast Five, the latest in the Fast & the Furious movies. I guess he just really likes the word "fast"? Oh, and don't get used to seeing the action star, Johnson is working on Journey to the Center of the Earth 2: Electric Boogaloo as Brendan Fraser's replacement. The subtitle is a joke, but that is actually happening. So be prepared for my review of The Rock's next action movie comeback in 2015!