Transformers - Ranked

For the last few years, I thought I hated the Transformers series. Maybe “hate” is too strong a word, but I was definitely indifferent to it, having skipped the two Wahlberg movies and only watching Bumblebee because it received surprisingly good reviews. Then my four-year-old son started playing with the toys, and Rise of the Beasts came out. Having kids has put a massive dent in my theater-going, and I’ve been looking forward to the day that I could take my kids to movies I actually want to see. He and my daughter are a little young for it, but I decided to take a chance and take them to see it.

The focus on the human characters bored them at times, but they made it through the whole movie without incident. And I was pleasantly surprised by the movie, though part of me missed the Michael Bay insanity (or Baysanity, as I will refer to it for the rest of this list). So I decided to rewatch the entire series and give my personal rankings.

Before I get to that, I want to explain my overall feelings about the series and my rationale for the ranking. Rewatching the Bay movies that I once considered garbage (aside from the first one, which I’ve always liked), I realized that I liked all of these movies. I don’t like them in a traditional sense. Instead, I enjoyed watching them become increasingly unhinged until we ended up with the literally difficult to watch The Last Knight. I learned quickly to not worry too much about the plot. I just knew that the world would be at stake, and in almost every movie Optimus Prime would learn that humanity was worth fighting for, even though he somehow forgot that he learned that between each film. 

Burning through the series, I came to enjoy the insane first half of the Bay movies, which mainly consisted of wacky and juvenile humor and cartoonish acting (hey John Malkovich and John Turturro). And then the second half was there for mindless action, in which I could sometimes tell what was going on, especially if it was in slow motion. The point is, I didn’t get too precious with these. This is a series based on toys; how seriously are we supposed to take it? Finally, I also considered rewatchability. I discovered I could put on almost any of the Bay movies at any time and shut off my brain and enjoy myself. This is why some of his stuff will rank above the almost traditionally good Bumblebee. Okay, enough explaining, here’s the list.

1. Transformers

I was kind of surprised by how wacky this one was upon a rewatch. I remembered a much more traditional Michael Bay summer movie, but this is very much Baysanity, just much less than all the sequels he directed. Still, this is the one that reminds me most of a traditional summer action movie like I grew up with, a la Independence Day, Armageddon (which is name-dropped in this movie), etc. I love all the crazy shit that happened in the later movies, but on a rewatchability scale, this is the one I want to revisit. But you still have plenty of wacky/inappropriate stuff to marvel at. For instance, a dog pisses on an Autobot, an Autobot pisses on a government agent, Megan Fox, playing a high schooler, is shot as if she’s in a soft-core porno and adult characters call her hot, LeBeouf and Fox end the film making out on top of Bumblebee while other Autobots watch, the douchey guy named Trent was such a good douche that he later played a douche played Trent in the Bay-produced Friday the 13th remake, the product placement comes to life, etc. I remember being surprised by how much I liked this the first time I saw it, and now I appreciate it for being crazy but restrained enough to pass for a regular movie. It will always be my go-to when I want to revisit this world.

2. Transformers: Dark of the Moon

This one surprised me the most upon a rewatch. I remember being amped up for this when the previews first came out. It looked like a return to form after the disappointing second film, and it was in 3D (which was something that excited me at the time). And then it ended up being a goofy mess. These days, though, I enjoy a goofy mess from time to time. And the action half of the movie is pretty damn good. Some of that shit in the city is awesome (sliding down a toppling skyscraper, jumping out of a crashing helicopter, etc.). It turns out this is just as crazy as I want Bay to go before it gets tiresome. Oh, and John Malkovich put this over the top to place second; I don’t know what the fuck he’s doing in this, but I like it.

3. Transformers: Rise of the Beasts

I like the Baysanity, but I also enjoy fairly straightforward simple movies in this series, too. And let’s face it: five Bay versions of this franchise is plenty. It’s time to move into a slightly more sane world. At least it is, for me. Maybe it’s recency bias, but this film struck the perfect balance of stupid shit and decent action. 

4. Bumblebee

This movie was so traditionally decent that they left Transformers off the title in an attempt to distance itself from the franchise. And that’s why it’s not higher on my list. It’s good, and you actually care about the main character this time around, but that’s not really what I’m looking for in this series. Still, it’s a good time, and god damn is it refreshing to only have to keep track of a handful of robots. 

5. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

This isn’t as bad as I remember, but it’s still among the three films I don’t plan on ever watching again. This is when the action first became indecipherable at times, but the human characters actually elevate it a bit for me. I love the part with Sam’s mom acting like she’s on bath salts after eating a pot brownie. And I guarantee the only reason why John Turturro was allowed to climb on an actual pyramid was because Bay had to promise him something to get Turturro to agree to do some wacky shit like show his ass and talk about robot testicles. Oh, and I guess Transformers can be humans, and there’s a robot afterlife or something. It doesn’t matter. None of this matters. 

6. Transformers: Age of Extinction

This is when the Baysanity truly took over, and I’m fine with it. Fuck it, put Marky Mark in there as an inventor. Have Stanley Tucci turn full lunatic near the end. Throw in some dinobots. Who cares? If not for the ridiculous running time of 165 minutes, this would be at least one spot higher on my list. These movies (aside from the last two movies) are all way too long, but pushing three hours is crossing a fucking line.

7. Transformers: The Last Knight

I sincerely believe Michael Bay went into a fugue state while he made this nearly unwatchable fuckery. Honestly, it’s only hard to watch because the aspect ratio inexplicably changes throughout the film, even during dialogue scenes. It’s just too distracting for me. If not for that, I might have loved this one, because all of this nonsense happens in it: Stanley Tucci plays a drunk Merlin, Mark Wahlberg becomes a Knight of the Round Table, Wahlberg calls an Autobot voiced by Steve Buscemi a “skank,” Anthony Hopkins calls Wahlberg “dude” and talks to him about “whoopie,” a robot butler sings a Ludacris song, there are submarines, Turturro gets to literally phone in his performance (which is even lazier than getting to sit in a wheelchair the whole time, like he did in his last appearance), the Autobots fight Nazis, and Stonehenge, for some reason. But Bay just couldn’t help himself and had to fuck it up with all those different ratios. Oh, well. 

"Planet of the Apes" - The DVD the Second-Hand Store Wouldn't Buy

*As always, I write these articles under the assumption that you’ve seen the movie already, so...SPOILERS.

**Over the next couple of months, I'll be drowning in awards screeners. So I've decided to occasionally take a break and watch one of my more random (in this case shameful) DVDs as a kind of palate cleanser in the midst of all these uppity awards contenders.

The Planet of the Apes remake has a special place in my collection: I once tried to sell it at a second hand DVD store (Coconuts in Evansville), and they wouldn’t buy it from me. This was ten years ago, so it’s not like trying to sell a copy of this garbage today. And I know they bought plenty of crap from me (though I can’t remember any specific titles) before, but this movie is where they drew the line. Also, they would give as little as fifty cents for a movie, but, again, not for this movie.

No other movie was ever turned down by that store, so Planet of the Apes is special. Or it might be cursed. I haven’t tried it, but something tells me that if I threw this movie away I would wake up one night and find it in my bedroom. So rather than tempt fate, I watched it again. It still sucks, and I still don’t know why I bought it in the first place.

Is it as bad as its reputation?

When I decided to watch this again, I told myself, “It can’t be that bad. I remember liking it when I saw it in the theater.” Well, it’s pretty bad. I don’t think it’s a total failure, though. The look of the film is great. The whole movie was just an excuse to make better-looking apes this time around, and they certainly accomplished that. The fact that it’s almost entirely practical is very impressive. The score is also very good. That’s about it. Now on to the problems.

The casting of Mark Wahlberg is a major problem. At the time, I guess I wasn’t paying much attention to his performance. But this time...my God, he is practically sleepwalking in this role. It’s bad enough that he’s cast as an astronaut. That’s right up there with science teacher from The Happening when it comes to Wahlberg miscasting. Even if you do buy him as an astronaut, nothing can forgive the low energy of his performance. I just don’t get it. He’s arguing with his superiors about going after his chimp buddy, and he’s doing it with the conviction of someone complaining about getting their order wrong at a fast food restaurant. His only job is to be passionate and shocked. He should be passionate about going after his chimp buddy or about saving the humans on the ape planet, but he never seems to care about anything. He should be shocked and disturbed by the ape society he encounters, but he instantly accepts it as normal just goes about trying to escape. I don’t know how I would handle suddenly being in a world of talking apes, but it would probably take me at least a day to adjust and lose my fucking mind. But Wahlberg is just like, “Human face or monkey face, it doesn’t matter which one I’m punchin’.”

The rest of the cast is decent, except for Estella Warren, who was apparently hired only to stare at Wahlberg longingly despite there being almost no relationship between their characters. Helena Bonham Carter is okay, but she clearly has trouble speaking through the prosthetics. In fact, I would say that’s the biggest issue with most of the ape performances. Some characters are very easy to understand; Paul Giamatti comes to mind. Most of the other actors couldn’t get past the make up. I suppose Roth is easy to understand, but he snarls every line.

The real problem with this movie is the story. It suffers mainly from being a bland remake rather than attempting to break new ground for the series, as the latest trilogy did. The film is far too similar to the original: man crash lands on ape planet, man gets captured, ape city is shown, man escapes to forbidden zone, twist ending. The inclusion of Charlton Heston and the cringe-inducing reverse of the “damn dirty ape” line show that this film never had any ambition beyond looking better than the original.

If there is a goal beyond being a straight remake, it’s an attempt to turn this into a summer action tentpole rather than the satire it should be. There are plenty of moments when the film script starts an idea about slavery, equality, politics, technology, etc. but it goes nowhere, and it usually followed immediately by some cheap ape sight gag. I’m not saying a movie can’t have a message and humor, but the message needs to be fully stated. This film has plenty of beginning thoughts that it doesn’t follow through with.

As for the action, it’s quite lacking, too. Aside from the impressive image of apes raining down following the ignition burst of the spaceship, the action is bland and/or comical. The main thing they try to showcase is a jumping ability, but it ends up looking out of place every time an ape suddenly jumps thirty feet in the air. And when an ape starts hammering down on another ape, it looks cartoonish, not brutal. It just seems like every part of this movie, save for the look and score of it, was half-assed and rushed. As for it being a rush job, many of those involved have admitted as much. But all the time in the world wouldn’t make that script any better.

That ending…

If there’s anything people remember about this crappy remake, it’s the ending. Wahlberg escapes and heads back to Earth, but somehow Thade beat him there by centuries and established an ape society in which he is eventually revered as much as Abraham Lincoln.

The sudden twist ending felt like a twist just for the sake of it. A remake of a film with one of the most famous twist endings has to have a twist ending too, right? Once again, this movie would probably have been better if they had said, “Screw the original, let’s make our own film.” But that didn’t happen. That said, my only issue with this ending is the statue. But first let me get into why I’m okay with the ending.

Once time travel is introduced, anything is possible. So Thade eventually got out and found a way to take ship to Earth. He traveled through time and ended up there in the past. I’m fine with that, since it’s basically the plot of the movie itself, just reversed. I don’t know why exactly a lot of people hated the ending, but if they hate it because they claim it makes no sense or impossible, then they forgot about the time travel plot. Fox was apparently worried about this after the fact since they included a chart explaining how it worked in the DVD (which is pointless because if you bought the DVD you are obviously at least a little okay with the ending).

A sincere complaint about the ending would be that Wahlberg leaves at all. Aside from a video message he received early in the film, he doesn’t seem to have much to go home to (and the people in the video seemed pretty lame anyway). He has friends, but I didn’t see a wife or kids or anything in that message. That’s not to say that any single man should go live on a planet of apes, but there is nothing in the film to show that he longs for home, aside from him simply stating that he needs to go home. Why? He doesn’t seem to be very important to the mission he was on. And on the planet of the apes, he has become a hero, somehow creating harmony between apes and humans in the span of a couple days. It seems like that is a better situation. Not to mention he has both an ape lady and a human lady wanting him, so he has options there, too.

Another sincere complaint about the ending is that what it sets up is far more interesting than what came before. I don’t want a sequel to this film; I want this film to be that sequel. That would be a remake worth watching. Instead of some twist ending, just have Wahlberg crash on Earth instead of half-ass planet of the apes. That way, the film can break new ground instead of wallowing in the better original.

So my main gripe is that the ending presented something more interesting than what I just wasted two hours on, but I do have one specific issue with the ending: the logistics. The statue of Thade is him as Lincoln, down to the suit and haircut. So Thade must have landed in the 1800s. So how did that work? All apes just suddenly rose up and overthrew society? Just how many apes were there in the United States in the 1800s? For that matter, how many apes do we have in our zoos today? Probably not enough for an uprising now, and certainly not then. And sure, a talking ape with advanced technology would cause quite a stir at any time, much less the 1800s. But does that mean he would immediately take power? I think it much more likely that he would be killed as soon as possible, even with his superior weapon in hand. I just don’t see how it could happen. But that’s another movie that would also be far more interesting than what we got: How Thade somehow takes over the United States in the 1800s with only a single laser gun. Maybe he was able to take a lot of apes with him or something, then he might have more of a chance...never mind. I don’t need to go any further down this particular rabbit hole, suffice it to say, I bet it would be more entertaining than what we got.

Do I regret buying this?

Oh God, yes. This is yet another movie in my collection that is there from my "must-buy-a-movie-every-week" and "I-saw-it-in-the-theater-so-I-must-buy-it" phase. I already tried selling it. Now I’ve accepted that this film is intertwined with my life by fate, and I have decided to be buried with it.

Random Thoughts

I haven’t mentioned Tim Burton at all in this article, but that’s not by design. I was about to go back and find the appropriate spot to mention him and decided against it, mainly because the more I think about it, the less I consider this a Tim Burton movie. I think the goofier moments are Burton-esque, but overall this is not the type of film he makes. Who hires Tim Burton to make a sci-fi action film? I’m guessing he didn’t have as much control as he does these days. I’m not sure he would have made a better film if he was left alone and given time to do so, but I’m almost positive that it would at least be a lot more interesting than this.

The IMDb trivia section for this is nuts: a Cameron and Schwarzenegger version, Roth turned down Snape for this, Wahlberg dropped out of Ocean’s 11 for this, Daniel Day-Lewis was considered for Thade (not that he would have taken it), the original ending (scrapped due to expense) had Wahlberg crash land into a Yankees game in which all the players were apes, etc.

I get that Thade is the bad guy, and that he's evil, but this has got to be the angriest performance I've ever seen. Every line is snarled. He growls at people at random.

The apes need to speak English, I get it, but the quotes and idioms from American culture (including versions of quotes from the original film) are distracting.

“Extremism in the defense of apes is no vice.” Why the fuck is an ape paraphrasing Barry Goldwater?

Thank God they free the little girl who was taken as a pet earlier in the film. That moment was way too dark in an otherwise goofy film.

Way too many scenes of apes doing “human” stuff: teenager apes smoking weed while wearing leather jackets, an old ape taking out dentures, apes engaging in foreplay, etc.

“Can't we all just get along?” Why would they know that quote?

I can't tell if this movie is trying to be serious or not. Every time I start to think about what it might be trying to say about our own culture, there's a stupid quote or sight gag that reminds me that I shouldn't apply thought to this movie.

The half-assed love triangle with Wahlberg, Carter, and Warren feels tacked on, at best. I’m sure Warren was added just to appease people who might be upset with a possible ape-human love plot.

Heston's casting yet another 4th wall breaking distraction.

Of course Heston-ape would keep a gun in an object of worship.

I bet Heston wrote his own lines praising the destructive power of guns.

Some of the ape soldiers had those Jai Alai scoop things. Is it more than just a random sport in their culture?

They shoehorn in this destined leader subplot with Wahlberg, but it makes little sense. He didn't defy the apes; he just ran away. His only goal is to abandon everyone. No amount of Estella Warren-staring is going to make that heroic.

It all feels so rushed. Like everything has to lead to a big a battle for the sake of having a big battle. Because of this, not enough time is spent in the ape city. So instead of getting the feel of a real planet of apes, we get comedic gags tossed in as they run away. It might have been better if Wahlberg was definitely stranded, so the movie could take place almost primarily in the city, and not in a bland desert setting.

Wahlberg's wannabe rallying speech is pretty awful. How many great speeches include the speaker saying “Listen!” multiple times?

The kid wanting to prove himself became way too big of a deal near the end. I'm not sure if that kid was with the group the entire time or if he was one of the randos who showed up later.

Still, the ship ignition attack was kind of cool. Too bad the insert shots of apes falling to the ground looked more like them just falling due to wind.

Aside from the occasional ridiculous jump or throw, the action is very limited due to the extensive costumes and makeup.

Tim Roth says “my friend” with such anger it's unintentionally funny since he's supposed to be trying to convince Michael Clarke Duncan to help him.

Michael Clarke Duncan does a pretty sudden turnaround based mostly on Wahlberg's word. As with everything else in this film, it felt rushed. As does Wahlberg's sudden departure, and the even more sudden twist ending. Man, a lot of crap suddenly happens in the final fifteen minutes…

So because he kissed an ape, he also had to kiss Estella Warren?

Why is it safe for him to travel in space in rags with no helmet? That's my issue with the logic of this time traveling talking ape movie? What's wrong with me?

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.

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. 

"Ted"

Directed by Seth MacFarlane, written by MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin, and Wellesley Wild, starring Macfarlane, Mark Wahlberg, and Mila Kunis - Rated R

Flash!  Ahhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhh!

Seth MacFarlane has been dominating the animation world on TV for quite some time with shows like “Family Guy” and “American Dad,” but he has not made an effort to cross over into live action very often.  With “Ted,” MacFarlane makes his feature film debut as an actor (though he stays off screen by donning a motion capture suit to play Ted), writer, producer, and director.  And it turns out that MacFarlane’s humor translates quite well to cinema.

Of course, as with all comedies, I can’t just tell you flat out that this is a funny movie.  Some people will find this movie offensive, crude, and downright stupid.  Some people (e.g., me) will laugh at almost every weird, crazy minute of this film.  I would say that if you enjoy “Family Guy” and all those shows, then you’ll like this.  And if you don’t like those shows, then you’ll probably hate Ted.  This is very clearly a movie made by the same people.  One other warning: you probably shouldn’t let your kids watch this.  Even though it is about a talking teddy bear, it is a still an R-rated comedy and it gets pretty raunchy relatively early in the film. 

Ted works for multiple reasons.  First, the R-rating allows MacFarlane, and fellow writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild, to go places they can’t go on TV.  Secondly, the constant pop culture referencing style of “Family Guy” is just plain funny.  Some may scoff at the “easy” humor of a show or movie that bases its laughs on other works, and maybe they are right.  But you know what?  I was laughing.  And that’s all a comedy has to do for me.

The pop culture stuff can be a blessing and a curse, however.  While most of the jokes are broad and the gags are funny no matter what you know, some of them may go over your head.  For instance, 80s cult classic Flash Gordon is referenced constantly.  I have actually never seen that movie so even though I still laughed at the absurdity of some of the jokes, I didn’t get to enjoy them as much as someone who had seen that film.  And Flash Gordon is certainly not the only reference made in this film.  The more pop culture trivia you know the better.  

There’s no point in getting into other jokes since it will just spoil them, so the other major factor needs to be addressed: the CG.  Normally in a comedy you don’t have to worry about special effects very much, but Ted is different since the main character is a walking, talking teddy bear.  The CG is great.  It’s easy to accept Ted as an actual onscreen character.  The performances helped with this quite a bit, as well.  MacFarlane is funny enough with his Peter Griffin voice (which is actually referenced, as well), but more importantly, he made a point to wear a motion capture suit and perform with the other actors.  That assuredly helped out the other actors, but they still had to convincingly interact with the toy bear and they did a fine job.

As far as comedic performances go, the cast is strong as well.  Mark Wahlberg is proving to be well suited for comedy and this role seemed even more tailored to his comedic sensibilities than his previous comedy, The Other Guys.  “Family Guy” alum Mila Kunis is fine, also, playing the girlfriend, but getting a bit more to do than you might expect.  The rest of the cast is peppered with some familiar faces and a number of very odd and funny cameos. 

Overall, Ted is one of the funnier comedies to come out this year, though time will tell if it’s the “funniest” (as the ads would lead you to believe).  It certainly ranks in my top three comedies so far along with 21 Jump Street and Wanderlust.  Hopefully Seth MacFarlane will keep going after this success and produce more and more quality comedies. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, just wanted to mention some of my favorite parts down here.

The Ryan Reynolds cameo was so odd and hilarious.  His piercing stare cracked me up.

The Sam Jones cameo was great as well, even though I have never seen Flash Gordon.  That party scene in general is amazing.  Loved the conversation about the Italian restaurant they plan to open.

Giovanni Ribisi and his kid were pretty creepy/funny, but Ribisi's dancing to "I Think We're Alone Now" stole the show.  So weird and great.

There are a ton of moments I found hilarious, but I just want to point out one more: Tom Skerritt.  It makes almost no sense, but I thought it was the funniest part of the film.  The payoff of Matt Walsh kidnapping Skerritt's daughter to force him to hang out is so ridiculous how can you not laugh?