Dustin: 3.5/5 stars Nick: 2.5/5 stars Average: 3/5 stars (Woozy canary)
Dustin: Pain & Gain is a
true crime action/comedy directed by Michael Bay,
and starring Marky Mark and the Rock. What did you think of Pain & Gain,
Nicky Nick?
Nick: Well, Dusty Dustin, I thought it had a lot of energy with its
erratic camerawork, but that and the constant tonal shifts made P&G
a hard film to sit through.
Dustin: I didn’t find the tonal shifts too jarring. But
I did have a problem with the overall tone. This was a “true” story about a trio of bodybuilders in search of the “American Dream.” They start a scam and end up gruesomely killing their
victims when their plans go awry. I wasn’t sure playing
it for laughs was entirely appropriate. By the way, I prefer to go by my
wrestling name, the Stone. But to be honest, next to the Rock, the Pebble would probably be
a more appropriate stage name.
Nick: By tonal shifts, I meant most scenes felt
uncomfortable for the actors and myself as none of us knew whether to laugh or cringe.
Dustin: Did you think this was a problem with the
dialogue? I thought it was often quite clever. These criminals were borderline
brain dead, which is what made me laugh so much. I think it would be hard to
write these characters without coming off as comical.
Nick: I loved the dialogue. It made a character quite dumb, but not to the
point Rob Downey, Jr., would say “full retard.”
Dustin: When Marky Mark’s character named Michael Corleone and Scarface as American heroes because they came from nothing and achieved the American dream, it wasn’t only funny, but effectively gave relevant insight into the mind of the character.
The movie had some good
visual gags too. You see Marky Mark drive up in a nice car, wearing a collared
shirt and a tie, then you see him get out of the car and he’s wearing jeans.
Then as he walks away from the camera, you see they’re jean shorts, and you
remember this was set in the ‘90s. There were many nice moments like that.
Nick: I personally didn’t like those moments because one imagines the writers smirking when writing things like that. To bring up visual gags, like when the text pops up, “This is still a true story... seriously,” that moment was completely inaccurate, and so was a lot of the film as I found out after I had seen it.
Dustin: To think you can’t trust Michael Bay after he brought us Pearl Harbor.
The movie had some
subtler visual gags too. Like after Marky Mark and the Rock kidnapped the owner of
a Schlotzsky’s Deli, then
later let him take a sip from
one of their Schlotzsky’s cups. I enjoyed
the thought of them going back to the restaurant for lunch even after they
kidnapped the owner, which showed how hapless they were as criminals and
developed character a little more.
Nick: Or how Lugo (Marky Mark) decides it’s a good
idea to then manage the Schlotzsky’s and to then move into the man’s house. Seems like an easy
way to get caught if that person was still alive and very, very loud.
Dustin: That part probably could have been left on the
cutting room floor without taking much from the story. Which leads me to the
film’s length. I think we both thought the movie was about 20 minutes too long,
even though the movie moved at a
fast clip. What could have been cut without detracting from the story?
Nick: I thought that the film was 50 minutes too long
in what it chose to show. But then after taking out that 50 minutes, I would then add another 20 minutes of just a
little more character development of our main character instead of switching
the narrative around between five or six. I certainly didn’t need to know Ed
Harris’s inner dialogue.
Dustin: Or the European stripper’s. The movie also waited too long to establish the multi-character point-of-view. It was a bit odd to hear Ed Harris’s inner thoughts for the first time about 90 minutes in. They should have started with the multi-character POV from the start, or, better yet, just stick to Marky Mark.
Nick: I would have liked to just have the viewpoint
of the three main characters, mostly focusing on Daniel Lugo, and with him
being the only one with an inner dialogue.
Dustin: This movie was like the poor man’s In Cold
Blood. Both are based on true stories. Both focused on criminals lacking
a number of brain cells who target victims for their money. I realize I might be
flagging myself as an idiot to some film lovers, but in some ways, I liked P&G
better than In Cold Blood. Respond.
Nick: Well, I feel you’re justified in that you’re
comparing the plot lines and how they are both based on true stories. P&G
is certainly more entertaining, but in my opinion not as well worked as In
Cold Blood. The movies I would compare P&G to from a cinematic
standpoint is Run Lola Run and Bay’s The Rock.
Dustin: I agree In Cold Blood is better from a
cinematic viewpoint, such as the famous scene where Robert Blake gazes out the
window and the shadows from the rain splattering on the window make it look like
he’s crying. That was a much subtler and effective visual than a drop of blood
dripping in slow motion from a chainsaw, bouncing off a counter top and
splattering on a cashier’s Home Depot apron in P&G. But In Cold
Blood was also too preachy by
asking us to sympathize with the criminals and making them out to be “victims
of the death penalty.” I personally think the criminals were born manipulators
and Truman Capote played right into their hands. Pain & Gain didn’t
have any of that preachiness and was thoroughly entertaining. I don’t always
mind “checking my brain at the door.”
Nick: Sorry to slightly disagree with your viewpoint
on P&G. I felt some scenes were supposed to make you feel for the
criminals. The murders were all depicted purely as accidents, with the
exception of the attempted murder of Tony Shalhoub’s character (who was portrayed as an asshole
who had it coming). In real life, the killings were not seen that way, but were
glorified in the film so as to not make one completely hate the characters.
Dustin: I think that goes back to both of our feeling
that playing this true story for laughs wasn’t totally appropriate or
respectful to the victims. Maybe they should have changed all the characters’
names and just acted like it was an original story. If anyone pointed out the
resemblance to the actual events, the writers could have said they were inspired by
some real events.
Nick: Actually, all the names besides Lugo's, Doorbal's and Doyle's were changed, I believe.
Dustin: I think we both had trouble with the camerawork.
Nick: Bay is just too excited when he has a camera in
his hands. It’s always moving!
Dustin: You’re right. I’ve never been a fan of the “shaky cam.” There is rarely an artistic reason for the shaky cam. The shots were also very short. Probably two seconds on average. All this movement gave me a mild migraine, which was my main complaint about the film and would prevent me from seeing it a second time. If I had to describe the visual style, I would call it “loud.” Would you recommend this film?
Nick: I’m on the fence. Yes, in terms of how
entertaining it can be at moments, but the constant shift of focus, and the
text put on screen throughout the movie about how this is still a true story
(even though the actual events were very different) make me despise P&G
in a way. Though I honestly have told everyone to see it just because I think
it’s one of Bay’s best. Dwayne Johnson did a great job with the role and I
thought Anthony Mackie’s character should have been more developed because he
is a superb actor.
Dustin: I would recommend Pain & Gain solely on its
comedic value, even if the tone made me uncomfortable.
Nick: So today we learned to avoid weight lifting as it will ultimately lead to
stupidity, hookers, drugs and slaughtering people who don’t support Marky
Mark’s “American Dream.”
Dustin: Word to your mother!
No comments:
Post a Comment