Exclusive Clip: Fiona Richmond ‘Road Tests’ Some Men in Michael Winterbottom’s ‘The Look of Love’

Looks like Carrie Bradshaw has a little British competition, and her name is Fiona Richmond.

In “The Look of Love,” an upcoming British biopic centered around Paul Raymond, a publisher who opened the U.K.’s first strip club, Raymond (Steve Coogan) is hoping to spice up his adult men’s magazine with a new sex column. But the question is: What woman has the nerve and gumption to detail her sexcapades in print (or “road test” men, as he aptly puts it)? Like an angel answering Raymond’s prayers, Miss Richmond (Tamsin Egerton) waltzes into his life ready to take on the task (and take off her clothes).

In this exclusive clip, check out Richmond’s first meeting with Raymond and his associate, where she locks down the job by turning up the heat with some R-rated dirty talk. In fact, the talk is so hot, Raymond asks Richmond to strip down in the middle of the club. Spicy!

“The Look of Love” is slated for a limited U.S. release this Friday, July 5.

Categories: No Categories

Tags: Biopic, Look of Love, Paul Raymond, Steve Coogan, Tasmin Egerton

Interview: Michael Shannon on ‘The Iceman,’ Boring Romances and Murder

When one thinks of actor Michael Shannon, the image that comes to mind is not necessarily puppies and fields of daisies. And he’s fine with that. 

The burly actor is known for roles in “Take Shelter,” HBO’s “Boardwalk Empire” and other brutal characters. Shannon, who stars in this weekend’s “The Iceman” as real-life serial killer Richard Kuklinski, under contract for the mob and leading a double life that not even his wife knows the depths of, takes parts the he finds challenging and interesting. Things he doesn’t find interesting: Romance. “Who the hell wants to see that?!” he asked. 

We sat down with Shannon in New York ahead of the release of “The Iceman,” where the actor ate continuously from a bowl of pistachios and sipped on a glass of red wine while discussing romance, his perfect murder and which of his films you should give a second chance.

Kase Wickman: I find you very intimidating.

Michael Shannon: As you should! No, I’m just kidding. I’m a goofball.

Do people recognize you on the street? Are they scared of you? What do they do?

They usually say, “Hey, I know you! You’re so-and-so in such-and-such! Can I get my picture with you?” Okay! I Do the picture and say, “Have a nice day, buh-bye!” I always say, beyond the initial act of recognizing somebody, the funny thing about it is there’s nothing to talk about. There’s no conversation to be had, it’s literally like tag. it’s like ah, I got ya! I need to let you know that I see you. The only time it irritates me is when people say “I know I know who you are, but I don’t know why, so will you explain to me why I know who you are because it’s really bugging me.”

They’re like, “What were you in!” I say, “A lot of things.” And they’re like, “No, seriously, what’ve you been in?” I say, “Really, I’ve been doing this for over 20 years, I’ve worked on a lot of projects.” And then if they insist, I say I was in “Bad Boys 2,” because that’s honestly probably the movie I’m most known for.

Do people quote lines at you ever?

“I have my rights.” Some people quote that to me, but they don’t do it very often.

In this movie, you play a hitman. Was there anything new for you in that?

I really just went to the source material, which is the interview that Kuklinski did for the America Undercover series they did on HBO, and I got a full unedited copy of the interview, which is like over 20 hours long and I just watched it.

Did you imitate mannerisms? How much of it’s you and how much is modeled specifically on him?

A part of the film that is a direct lift from the interview, it bookends the film, starts it and ends it, that I tried to get exactly the way it was. I tried. I mean, I don’t really even look, despite the makeup and everything, I don’t really look like him, but I tried to get that right. But for most of the rest of the film, I used my imagination. I went off things that he said about himself, but it’s tricky because I don’t think anybody really knows what happened. I don’t think he ever really told anybody what happened. I think he told different people different things. It’s hard to know what to make of a guy who says he killed between 100 and 200 people. I mean, that’s a large difference. It’s like saying, you know, I bat between .300 and .400 in baseball, it’s a big difference. You would know.

What do you think would be the perfect murder?

Well, Kuklinski came up with this Mr. Freezy character. They would explore ways where you could literally walk down the sidewalk past a person and kill them without touching them or them even knowing what happened. You didn’t even have to stop walking. It had a lot to do with the cyanide system. Like what you see in the disco in the movie, when he dances by the guy and sprays it in his face. That’s pretty good. Although that’s the way you wind up getting caught, by trying to buy cyanide off an undercover cop.

I eat cyanide every day for breakfast.

“Princess Bride” style, to build up resistance?

Yeah, exactly.

How do you think you’d kill someone? 

Huh. I just can’t imagine killing anybody. That seems like such a horrible thing. I mean, life is so precious, I would not want to be responsible for ending someone’s life, I could never shake that off.

Somewhere down the hall, the publicists are very relieved and they don’t know why.

Yeah. I mean, every once in a while I go off, I have a little temper tantrum or whatever. It’s not like I’m an unemotional person, I mean if I was, I wouldn’t be an actor. Most actors are prone to fits every now and then, but the idea of actually hurting anybody, I couldn’t stomach it.

Your characters are often very violent. Do you have a favorite stage fighting move?

I’ve done a lot of stage combat over the years because I’ve done a lot of plays, and I’ve done a lot of plays that have had combat in them for whatever reason. I’m not trained in martial arts or any sort of, you know, soldier maneuvers or anything. I basically just go on my experience on stage, doing stage combat.

I like the fake punch. I like the punch, fake punch. I mean, my favorite fight I’ve ever done on stage was the end of “Killer Joe.” When we did the play, the fight at the end is very savage. That was my favorite fight sequence ever. It ended with me, like, getting shoved into a refrigerator and all the shelves falling out and him slamming the door on me and crushing my legs and then my sister shoots a shot into the air and everybody freezes and I come out of the fridge, and I’m like, “Sister!” and then she shoots me in the head.

Wow.

It’s an intense play.

Sounds like a light comedy.

It’s what I’m known for.

You’ve definitely got the bad guy thing down pat. Would you ever do something like a rom com?

With you?

Sure.

Yeah! Let’s do it! Who’s gonna write it?

What would it be about?

It would just be about two people having the time of their lives, just enjoying each others’ company, going on long walks in the park, having, you know, brunch together. Just having a nice life! That could be the name of it: “A Nice Life.” But who the hell wants to see that?! That’s my point. Every time someone asks me, “Why do you do this?” I’m like, there has to be something going on. There has to be an event, a conflict, a struggle…something! Catharsis, you know. Ever since the Greeks, that’s what it is. Something hot has to happen. It can’t just be everyone having a good time.

There can be conflict in romance too though.

Yeah, but that’s all, like, ahh, I got her the wrong shoes! She wanted the blue ones, I got her the red ones. Oh well. I mean, there are artfully constructed romantic comedies, but I haven’t seen any recently. The tend to be kind of antique.

What are some good romances, then? What is Michael Shannon’s favorite light fare?

“Philadelphia Story” is the best romantic comedy ever made, in my opinion. Um, maybe something like, you know, “Carnal Knowledge.” That’s a great movie. I don’t know if it’s necessarily a comedy. This crap nowadays, I can’t even stand. I don’t even go to the movies anymore. I really don’t. I don’t watch TV, I don’t do anything.

Do you watch your own movies?

Oh yeah, yeah, usually I go to the premiere or whatever. I mean, that’s fun! I mean, you did all that frickin’ work, you might as well go see the damn thing.

My favorite movie last year was “Amour.” That was the best movie of last year. It’s the best one. My grandma had a stroke about 10 years before she died, and I had to watch her in a similar state to the character Emmanuelle Riva plays, so for me it was a very emotional experience, very personal.

Are there any of yours that you really like?

I’ll revisit some now and then, if the opportunity presents itself. I don’t sit at home and obsessively watching my movies. The movie I’m most fond of is “Take Shelter,” really, out of all the movies I’ve made. I have a lot of them though that I’m fond of. I was in Sidney Lumet’s last picture, for chrissakes, that was pretty cool. The last one before he died.

What do you think is your most underrated film?

Yeah, yeah, I got two of ‘em: “The Missing Person” and “Grand Theft Parsons,” did you see that? I wish more people would see those two movies, because I’m actually very proud of those two movies.

Were they just under-marketed, or not received the way you would have liked?

“The Missing Person” was released by a company that, honestly, should just go out of business. Strand Releasing can just roast in hell. “Grand Theft Parsons,” I don’t know what happened with that. I don’t know what released it. It’s tough. There’s so many damn movies. There’s more movies out there than there’s any need for. It’s ridiculous. Our “Iceman” movie is coming out the same weekend as “Iron Man 3.” I think we’ll do alright per screen. I hope so.

That sorority girl letter video is one of my favorite things ever. Did that voice come naturally to you?

I did it seven times. Two wides, two mediums, two close and one profile. And I didn’t get it until the profile, and the profile is when I nailed it. The wide, medium and tight, they’re okay, but the profile is really where I understood what was going on.

So what did you understand?

I found the voice, the rhythm. It’s not like a rational thing, it’s more like, it’s very ethereal. Acting is a very ethereal thing that’s not easy to explain in words.

Was it your idea to turn this into a monologue?

I had nothing to do with it. I didn’t even know about the letter. I never go on the internet. I read my emails every once in a while, that’s it.

Can you tell me anything I don’t already know about “Man of Steel”? 

It’s about this guy named Superman, and he flies around and he, like, does stuff.

“The Iceman” arrives in theaters tomorrow. Check out our not so hot review.

Categories: Interviews

Tags: Michael shannon, Michael Shannon Interview, The Iceman

Baymageddon: One Man Tries to Survive A Full Day of Michael Bay

Like it or not — and I find myself switching sides depending on the film — Michael Bay’s distinct directorial swagger remains the hyper-active, hyper-masculine and altogether inevitable manifestation of American culture’s collective id. At best, the man makes giddily exaggerated entertainments; at worst, he delivers ordeals. In celebration of his latest release, “Pain & Gain,” the programming team at Austin’s Alamo Drafthouse offered up a four-movie marathon of Bay’s blockbusters for last Sunday’s “Baymageddon” event. The monetary cost of attending was relatively negligible, but what greater toll would my brain cells pay in the end?

2:00 PM: Alamo programmer/event mastermind Greg MacLennan took to the stage with reliable enthusiasm as he pumped up the crowd for an all-but-revealed lineup, to be played in the order suggested by Bay himself and for the most part gracing the screen in honest-to-goodness 35mm. MacLennan did this while standing before a close-enough replica rocket that tipped the identity of the day’s first film, and if that didn’t do the trick, then the V-X gas swallowing contest to follow (involving bowls of green Jell-O, naturally) should have sealed it.

“Let’s hope this elevates their thinking.” -General Francis X. Hummel (Ed Harris), “The Rock”

2:15: First, trailers for “Escape from Alcatraz” and “Highlander 2: The Quickening,” then “The Rock.” Bay’s second collaboration with Jerry Bruckheimer certified his maximalist appeal alongside fellow ‘90s juggernauts Tony Scott and John Woo, as General Hummel’s biochemical threat against San Francisco finds itself tested by the covert arrival of FBI Agent Stanley Goodspeed (Nicolas Cage) and former Alcatraz escapee John Mason (Sean Connery). If the camera ever held still, it was almost certainly aimed square at the sweaty face of a shouting authority figure; in Bay’s films, there is hardly ever any wiggle room between chaotic action and stoic reaction.

Also check out: Michael Bay’s films ranked from best to worst

Then again, many of Bay’s films to follow would rarely establish stakes, motives and that ticking clock with such efficiency, nor would they benefit from the seasoned presence of a pre-retirement Connery and the antic asides of a pre-shark jump Cage. In fact, the latter’s role results in many of the film’s laughs, which makes the glaring inclusion of a mincing hairstylist and not one, not two, but three loud black extras feel like so much needless pandering. “The Rock” would not mark the last time that Bay had seen fit to include these particularly egregious stereotypes…

“This is some sick s**t!” “Yep, and it’s about to get sicker…” -Detectives Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) and Mike Lowrey (Will Smith), “Bad Boys II”

4:45: Trailers for “Cop and a Half” and Sean Penn’s “Bad Boys,” then “Bad Boys II.” As if the sight of Bay’s own “directed by” credit flanked by a burning cross wasn’t warning enough, this half-fun and beyond bloated sequel not only epitomizes Bay’s penchant for excess, but marks a distinct turning point in his career when simply big, dumb and loud action flicks curdled into more egregious, offensive and cumbersome affairs. Between his transparent efforts to replicate “Titanic” with 2001’s “Pearl Harbor” and the pitifully poor performance of the perfectly big, dumb, loud “The Island” to follow, it’s little wonder that, beneath all their digital mayhem, his “Transformers” films would come to share the same exclusionary characteristics and woefully misguided humor of “BB2.”

For the record, I remain in awe of roughly fifty percent of this film, namely the overwhelmingly practical action sequences and one particular line of dialogue about the imminent realness of some particular s**t, but when that wanton destruction isn’t being marred by the flippant desecration of corpses, it’s surrounded by groan-inducing gags involving collapsing backyard pools, Marcus accidentally ingesting ecstasy, and an exhaustive amount of homophobic misunderstandings in a Miami electronics store. Sure enough, it’s in this last scene when both a shrill black woman and an effeminate gay couple feel the need to chime in with catty commentary. Yet people were still surprised by the time “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” introduced its minstrel-show robot sidekicks…

“I understand that you were handicapped by a natural immaturity, and I forgive you.” -Grace Stamper (Liv Tyler), “Armageddon”

7:20: Trailers for “Space Camp,” “The Fifth Element” and the first “Transformers” film, then “Armageddon.” This film just didn’t mark our return to the relative sanctity of ‘90s Bay efforts, it brought with it the most purely basic plot (I know) of his entire career. An asteroid careens towards Earth, and a crew of oil-rig roughnecks led by Harry Stamper (Bruce Willis) are charged with flying into space and blowing the thing up. Sure, we’re gifted ancillary antagonists in the form of meddlesome government officials and interpersonal friction between Stamper and hot-headed protégé/potential son-in-law A.J. (Ben Affleck) along the way, but the disaster flick formula shines above all that, barreling towards a planet-killing deadline with enough sheer force to render bearable questionable diagnoses regarding space dementia and sunset seduction scenes involving the very strategic placement of animal crackers.

Oh, and Bay gets his token black extra in right at the very start, because when the end of the world comes, may we all be so lucky as to hear the news first out of Eddie Griffin’s mouth.

10:00: A second pair of volunteers agree to chug down a raw egg before racing each other to conduct five push-ups, resulting in an Aesop-worthy upset and no apparent puking.

“I’ve watched a lot of movies, Paul. I know what I’m doing.” -Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg), “Pain & Gain”

10:10: A cheeky video intro filmed by Bay himself for just this occasion, then “Pain & Gain.” What a strange thought that the explosion-meister’s “small movie” is redeemed in part for the sheer, thorough awfulness of its characters because Bay actually seems aware that these are, in fact, thoroughly awful people. Based on the true crimes of Miami’s Sun Gym gang in late 1994 and early 1995, “P&G” concerns itself with three materialistic men who might have very well gone on to worship Bay’s fetishistic stylings had they not been caught for their heinous and ultimately murderous efforts at extorting their richer clients.

Like “Killing Them Softly” set in sunnier climes, the film follows around fitness instructor Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) as he ropes bodybuilding buddies Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson, hilarious here) among others into sharing his own aggressive American dream. All involved were seemingly tempted towards their crimes due to a contagious combination of ambition and arrogance, and for a good while, Bay would seem to have fashioned a darkly funny condemnation of what some might think it takes in order to keep up with the Joneses, this in spite of his old knack for homophobia coming back to bite him on the ass. However, that cynicism finds itself counterbalanced by fewer and fewer laughs as “P&G” needlessly drags itself toward the two-hour mark, and what initially seems like a knowingly slick portrayal of successfully lunk-headed living comes perilously close to becoming a hollow exercise in non-stop cynicism.

When the Coen Brothers took a similar tack in both “Fargo” and “Burn After Reading,” they found these criminal misdeeds either tragically funny or just plain tragic. Bay doesn’t quite bring the same weight of moral authority to his picture, but when you look at the last two films he made about bad boys in Miami — let alone any three films of his, viewed back-to-back-to-back — “Pain & Gain” can’t help but resemble some measure of progress.

Categories: No Categories

Tags: Alamo drafthouse, Armageddon, Bad Boys II, Michael bay, Movie Marathon, Pain & Gain, The rock

Tribeca: Documentaries on Michael Haneke, Gore Vidal and Pauline Kael’s Baby Daddy

It’s a bit of a rule that documentaries about artists are almost never as interesting as their subjects. That may seem a bit harsh, and it’s not as if these films are worthless. Yet too many of the docs that fall into this category simply tell a bland biographical narrative, occasionally illustrating their facile portraitures with images of paintings or clips from films. The best docs about artists manage to evoke the right spirit, blending a person’s life together with their greatest achievements.

But how do you do it? As “Room 237” demonstrated, one could make a feature length film about a just single piece of an artist’s output, never mind the whole thing. When you factor in a life story, it becomes an even bigger problem. Documentarians are forced to choose, to build around a particular angle. This year’s Tribeca Film Festival has a whole slew of these films. Perhaps the most daring of them is Yves Montmayeur’s “Michael H. Profession: Director.”

Its boldness lies in its simplicity. Montmayeur made a film about Michael Haneke’s oeuvre and nothing else. He begins with the filming of “Amour” and works backwards, blending clips, production footage, and interviews both new and old with the director and his actors. In spite of being notoriously unwilling to interpret his films, the Austrian auteur is terribly talkative (and surprisingly spry). His stars are enlightening as well, an assemblage that includes Isabelle Huppert, Juliette Binoche, and of course Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva.

Much of the discussion seems to revolve around how Haneke doesn’t like to discuss his movies, including some entertaining footage of the director refusing to answer what he deems to be bad questions. He will also say things like “All of my films can be seen as a reaction to contemporary cinema,” which is interesting but not exactly groundbreaking. The excerpts of the films themselves, meanwhile, make “Michael H.” play a bit like a supercut of Haneke’s most violent and disturbing moments. Yet Montmayeur doesn’t emphasize the horror of his films in his selection interview footage.

“Michael H. Profession: Director” is a must-see for the die-hard fan of Haneke’s work, but does not offer much to the viewer that hasn’t seen at least most of his filmography. Thankfully for Montmayeur, that still gives him an audience. But what if he were directing a doc about a much lesser-known artist? “Big Joy: The Adventures of James Broughton” takes that problem and turns it into quite the opportunity.

James Broughton was a poet and filmmaker who got his start during the San Francisco Renaissance of the late 1940s. Not too many people know about him and his work, though “Big Joy” makes it pretty clear how unfortunate that is. His films are delightful and his poetry is passionate, a body of work that you will instantly draw you in. Clips of his many shorts feature prominently in “Big Joy,” but have none of the homogeny and brutality of “Michael H.” The title is entirely applicable, as his romantic and sexually adventurous work shines with real jubilation.

Yet the central pull of the film comes from the directors’ (three of them, Stephen Silha, Eric Slade and Dawn Logsdon) emphasis on Broughton’s relationships. He had a child with Pauline Kael. He went to Europe with his next lover, Kermit Sheets, and won an award at Cannes. He later returned to San Francisco and married a woman, at the urging of Stan Brakhage. His life was full of the ups and downs of a man wrestling with his sexuality, exacerbated by the swirling cultural community around him. “Big Joy” does not hide his gloomier moments, the dark thoughts that often accompany a closeted life, nor does it shield him from the ramifications of his failures and infidelities. Because no documentary can capture an entire lifetime, “Big Joy” settles for Broughton’s life-long relationship with love. It works beautifully.

Of course, this approach doesn’t work for everyone. Can you imagine a documentary about the life and loves of Gore Vidal? As we learn in Nicholas Wrathall’s “Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia” that might be fascinating, but would probably be impossible to make. Vidal was shy about discussing his personal life, and insists that his many-year relationship with Howard Austen was non-sexual. So there’s that.

However, Wrathall fastens on to the driving forces of the great novelist and gadfly’s character: his anger and his wit. This is a documentary about Vidal’s life, but it’s principally about his politics. The novels are mentioned, of course, and their well-designed covers are paraded before the camera. Yet the film spends much more time on the early years with his grandfather, Senator Thomas Gore of Oklahoma, and his various political campaigns and agitations. His public debates with William F. Buckley are also front and center, perhaps the best showcase of Vidal’s fiery opinions and rapid-fire wit.

At times, other elements of the man appear that might merit more attention in the hands of another filmmaker. His precarious friendship with Christopher Hitchens is one of these, when Vidal shifted from aristocratically referring to the Brit as his heir to rejecting him completely in the wake of his support for the Iraq War. Yet Wrathall’s film is not about Hitchens, nor is it really about Vidal’s social life or sense of humor. True to the man’s spirit, “Gore Vidal: The United States of Amnesia” is about the role of the political writer. If you laugh the whole way through, that’s only because this greatest of public intellectuals was so damn funny.

Categories: No Categories

Tags: Documentaries, Gore Vidal, James Broughton, Michael haneke, Tribeca film festival

Ranked: Counting Down Michael Bay’s Films from Worst to Best

“I make movies for teenage boys. Oh dear, what a crime.”

People tend to hate Michael Bay for what he represents, and the fact that he represents it so unrepentantly. His is a cinema of crass excess – a perma-pubescent who doesn’t know how to love anything without fetishizing it, he’s the Yasujiro Ozu of “vulgar auteurism” (don’t hurt yourself trying to unpack that one).

A graduate of Wesleyan University who got his start shooting commercials for the likes of Coca-Cola, Bay inserted himself into the movie business when he teamed up with Jerry Bruckheimer for “Bad Boys.” Yes, “Bad Boys” was his FIRST. FILM. That’s like showing up for your driver’s license test in a fighter jet. From there, Bay blew up, eager to bring his particularly destructive brand of cinema anywhere that could sustain an explosion. If you can name it, Bay can nuke it.

Bay’s persona is staunchly unapologetic, which makes it that much stranger and unappreciated that yesterday he apologized for “Armageddon,” which we’ll soon learn is hardly the worst film that he’s ever made. He’s also one of the few iconic auteurs of the last 20 years whose entire body of work has probably been seen by huge swaths of the American public – simply by virtue of going to the biggest new movie in town, even casual moviegoers might unknowingly be familiar with the complete output of Michael Bay.

With that in mind, and with his latest (and perhaps smallest) film “Pain & Gain” opening on Friday, hopefully you’ll all be able to form your own opinions on our rundown of Michael Bay’s directorial career, ranked from worst to best. Feel free to rant and rave about our choices in the comments section, it’s what Bay would want.

9.) TRANSFORMERS (2007)

“What are you rolling? Whippets? Goof balls? A little wowie sauce with the boys?”

A tonal nightmare that remains the only “Transformers” film to make the cardinal sin of trying to tell a coherent story, Bay’s most toxically stupid blockbuster set the tone for the franchise but failed to find its rhythm. Bay has been raked over the coals for his supposedly choppy and inelegant action sequences, but utter incoherence would have been better than the noncommittal stabs at middle ground that drive the set pieces here.

The problem with “Transformers” is that it doesn’t do anything enough – much like the alien robots that lend the film its title, the first installment of Bay’s most massive franchise can’t commit to any particular form, and settles for artlessness. It’s as crass as either of its sequels (the bit in which a Transformer “pees” on John Turturro is a low point for human / machine relations), but lacks the one thing that no Michael Bay film can survive without: reckless confidence.

8.) TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (2009)

“That’s old school, yo. That’s like… That’s Cybertronian.”

So yeah, conventional wisdom is that this sequel is and always will be Michael Bay’s greatest offense, but the untethered madness of the whole thing earns my most begrudging respect, the insane spectacle of its climactic battle on the Great Pyramids as hard to follow as it is to ignore. “Revenge of the Fallen” is a film in which Bay’s resources have clearly outpaced his vision, the divots left by the writers’ strike filled with shamelessly racist caricatures and useless sidekicks.

The college shenanigans are enjoyably out of their mind (Isabel Lucas’ robot sex tail is a classic, but a classic of what I’m not so sure), and the towering IMAX presentation was certainly the overload the first film was lacking. But when the story is that bad, a little incoherence goes a long way.

7.) THE ISLAND (2005)

“That tongue thing is amazing!”

The first half of Bay’s most high-concept film uses wet gloss and ripe body horror to varnish over the fact that it’s dystopian story of simple-minded clones (being harvested to supply organs for their real-world equivalents, natch) is the kind of thing that Rod Serling could have written over the course of a single cigarette. Scarlett Johansson is perfectly cast as the bashfully naive Jordan Two Delta, her round features and flawless skin used to subvert her lab-grown celebrity image.

It’s all compelling enough until the clones escape and become the targets of a hugely destructive manhunt across a bland cityscape, the chaos merely serviceable when compared to the full-throated action sequences of Bay’s other films, which are not similarly burdened by the demands of such a wild premise. The third act’s inevitable return to the farm is as flat and perfunctory as anything Bay has ever shot, interesting only in how it lamely evinces a boneheaded pro-life argument.

6.) PEARL HARBOR (2001)

“I joined the army to do MY patriotic duty… AND… to meet guys.”

It was probably inevitable that “Pearl Harbor” would eventually be regarded as Bay’s most awful disasterpiece, as it pulverizes one of the most violent days in American history in an orgy of plastic pop culture. Bay’s ego is notoriously bombastic, and his cinema only works because he enters every room a couple seconds ahead of his feet, but a different kind of gall is required to turn tragedy into spectacle, memorializing a generation of Americans while selling their grandkids duffel bags full of popcorn.

There’s a Fordian “aw shucks” mentality to this love triangle between two good midwestern boys and the gal they both loved (there’s also a Fordian racism to the portrait of the Japanese), but the pop smear of Bay’s approach conflates the greatest pre-9/11 foreign attack on American soil with a tawdry romance that shamelessly targets modern teens by aping another international event, “Titanic.” It’s like doing brain surgery by going through the groin. Ben Affleck kickstarted a decade of irrelevance with his wooden flyboy, and Bay decided that he’d be better of focusing on box office history.

THE COUNTDOWN CONTINUES ON PAGE 2!

Categories: No Categories

Tags: Bad boys, Michael bay, Pain & Gain, Ranked, The rock, Transformers

Fast, Cheap & Out of Control: The Dangers of Michael Bay Going Low-Budget

First off, this weekend’s “Pain & Gain” is shaping up to be a rousing financial success. Made for a relatively paltry $22 million, and with Michael Bay reportedly working for scale, it would seem this would be a case of a director returning to his roots – something to laud, appreciate, and ultimately reward. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth, and I’d like to break down the myriad reasons why Michael Bay entering the arena of low-budget cinema is a looming disaster.

1. $22 million is still an awful lot of money

The fascination with production budgets can be traced all the way back to “Ben Hur” in 1925, a film made for a now smallish-seeming $142 million (adjusted for inflation, natch). Then came “Cleopatra” which either cost $233 million or $325 million, depending on how you define budget and which source you’re citing. Everyone remembers the “Waterworld” debacle, and even last year there was much hand-wringing around the sinking ship that was “John Carter”. So it would be safe to say that production budgets have become a shorthand for expectations. Is this a huge summer tentpole a la “The Avengers” (made for $220 million)? Or is it an award-seeking fall drama looking to score with The Academy, something along the lines of “Black Swan” ($13 million)? Either way, you know where you stand.

Not so with “Pain & Gain” – a film looking for all the world like an action set piece, fast cars, ladies in bikinis, copious amounts of gun fire. All brought in for a reasonable price!

But there are only two outcomes here. The first one is that the film is horrible, everyone rolls their eyes, demanding Michael Bay go back to spending all the studio money he can get his hands on. This would make for a bummer of a weekend, but it wouldn’t be half as troubling as the alternative. For what if “Pain & Gain” is awesome? Fun, fast, action-packed, adrenaline-fueled mayhem playing like the fondly remembered “Bad Boys”? That would mean Michael Bay has been stealing for the better part of two decades. Because it’s one or the other – you can make a great film for a zillion dollars, because that’s what it costs, or you can’t, because greatness in the summer season costs money. The idea of a $22 million film that works on every level basically indicates sanctioned incompetence has ruled Hollywood ever since the ’70s golden era ended. We’d all have to ask, “Where’s the money, Michael Bay? Where’s the money?”

But what of that noble deed that pushed down the budget, his smaller salary?

2. A 48-year old working below his pay grade isn’t admirable, it artificially forces down all wages and destroys the leverage of the younger directors.

Now I know what you’re saying, and let me disable you of a few notions straightaway. First off, could the technology have progressed to the point where huge budgets are no longer needed? Cameras are cheaper, they are handing out tax subsides for filmmaking as if they were Mentos, and frenetic handheld shots are cheap and en vogue. So perhaps Michael Bay needed almost $200 million for the third installment of “Transformers” but here, without CGI, he can afford to cut some corners?

However, even if I cede that point (which I don’t), one of the ways Michael Bay brought in a cheaper movie was by paying himself scale. Scale, in this case, is around $100,000, not too shabby, but a far cry from the $40 million he made (overall) on “Pearl Harbor” and a pittance compared to the eight percent of all the “Transformers” toys sold he collects. Basically, Michael Bay can afford to work for nothing because he’s worth an estimated $400 million. You know who can’t afford to work for nothing? Directors just starting out. Directors who would kill for a budget of $22 million, directors who, once they’ve “made it” are hoping to cash in just once on a seven-figure payday. Michael Bay taking scale, likely with points on the back-end, is a luxury that about half a dozen people directing in Hollywood have.

Then there’s this ludicrous argument that great artists should be willing to work for free, pay be damned, but this places all of the power in the hands of those who run commerce, and none in the hands of the artists. Michael Bay taking on “Pain & Gain” means there was one less chance for an aspiring director to get a job, and once they do get a job, they will be paid less. Bay could have easily, were he feeling charitable, handed out a huge gig to a director who showed promise, which would then allow that person to be choosy about his or her next project, meaning the next film down the road might have meant something to the individual.

In fact, Michael Bay is all too familiar with this method of farming out work, because he founded Platinum Dunes, and they specialize in horror remakes that come in costing around $20 million. Michael Bay is already out there cashing in on horror remakes (everyone loves those!) but now he’s actively hurting the careers of those who will come afterward. I’m not even mad, I’m impressed.

But what of …

3. The “Bad Boys” Conundrum

“Bad Boys” was made for something under $30 million in 1995. In 2003? “Bad Boys II” cost $130 million, meaning the cost of being bad and also boys quintupled. Might “Pain & Gain II” bring Michael Bay right back to a huge budget, rendering any slick nods toward more efficient filmmaking massively irrelevant? (don’t take this too literally, as “Pain & Gain” isn’t exactly the most sequel-friendly film Bay has made).

Then there is …

4. The “change agent” aspect of indie film

We’re only now starting to see the fruits of lean and mean filmmaking, crowd-sourcing, cheap high definition cameras and the de-localization of movie production pivoting out of Hollywood. “Pain & Gain” presents a serious challenge to all of that, however, in that studios don’t need to change, don’t need to recruit new talent, and will show very healthy financial statements by merely giving every established action director a few bucks to deliver rote entertainment with. In a very real sense, Hollywood’s continued building up of budgets allows for the smaller filmmaking to stand out in juxtaposition, the vibrant ecosystem existing beneath the towering canopy jungle. If Michael Bay can deliver a profitable action film on the cheap, why do we need Sundance? The continued expectation of increased budget has made the wounds much deeper on the misses, which often necessitates firings, new blood, and encourages new ways of doing things. These “new” ways are often great news for audiences, because commercial art informs out culture, and culture is not a statue, it’s a river. Mikey Bay wants to clog that river up!

Speaking of …

5. “Pain & Gain” will likely be free of artistic merit

There’s something to be said for the struggle of making the industry a healthier and more dynamic place. Young filmmakers are doing this, look no further than “Upstream Color” – a haunting film that cost $7,000 for Shane Carruth to make and delivered a more effective mood in the first ten minutes than all of Michael Bay’s films put together. “Pain & Gain” costs much much more than “Upstream Color” and there’s no reason we shouldn’t have let 2,500 people attempt their own version of small-budget film. Yes, even at $22 million, “Pain & Gain” isn’t really helping matters, it’s still far too much money on a film we’ve all seen before, a film whose ceiling is something around the admittedly great “Three Kings” but with a floor around “The Big Hit”.

While “Pain & Gain” might entertain you, there’s very little chance it will add anything to the language of cinema. And for a $22 million outlay, that’s a shame.

6. Critics will go easy on it.

This is being teed up for adoration. The headlines can already be predicted, “A fine return to form!” and “Efficient, spartan action filmmaking at its best!” Sigh. We’d just gotten to the point where people weren’t going to put up with huge “Transformers” films that were terrible, but the process will have to start anew after the super-coddle Bay will be on the receiving end of this weekend.

7. The lessons of the “Transformers” franchise might be lost to history

There is a butterfly effect at work here as well. Simply put, we need Michael Bay to be terrible so that young persons will be inspired to do something better. If a teen in Wisconsin (mathematically, the next great young director will come from Wisconsin) sees “Pain & Gain” this weekend and loves it, we’ll never know what he might have accomplished if subjected to “Transformers IV: The Quest for Robot Love.” If there’s no big inefficient spectacle to rail against, there’s no frustration, and no reason for anyone to reach higher. Michael Bay is a living, breathing gift of a motivation for an industry that occasionally lapses into apathy.

Yes, in attempting to subsume lower budget fare, Michael Bay has fired a warning shot over the bow of any who would dare to oppose him. He has access to far more than the $22 million it cost to make “Pain & Gain”, he could fund an army of these sorts of films, and his gain this weekend could lead to much more pain for all of us down the road, when the zombie apocalypse of copy-cat action films swarm the sky, blocking out the sun, a great and terrible financial engine grinding up those who would hope for better.

Laremy wrote the book on film criticism would kill for abs like Mark Wahlberg.

Categories: Features

Tags: Budgets, Mark wahlberg, Michael bay, Pain & Gain, The rock, Transformers

Your Daily Short: Michael Cera’s ‘Brazzaville Teen-Ager’

Welcome to Your Daily Short, a new feature on Film.com that will highlight and stream a short film at high noon. Every weekday. Every week.

TODAY’S SHORT: “Brazzaville Teen-Ager” (Michael Cera) 2013

RUNNING TIME: 19:33

WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH IT: A dramatic comedy about a kid named Gunther (Cera) who tries to connect to his dying father by convincing his boss to sing the background vocals on a new Kelis track (for a short film, it’s a long story), “Brazzaville Teen-Ager” is a strange but compulsively watchable new episode in the working life of Michael Cera, dropping on the actor’s YouTube channel yesterday and anticipating his transition into more serious roles (he starred in two deeply dark Sundance films earlier this year). Obviously based on a short story (it has that certain tone) and droll to the end, Cera’s short – which is too satisfying to feel like a put-on, suggests that the kid has reservoirs of unknown talent

Watch the previous Daily Short: “Daily Routine”

Do you have a favorite short film that you would like us to feature as Your Daily Short? Whether it’s something you love, something you made, or both, send it along to Filmdotcomshorts@Gmail.com and you might see it on the site!

Categories: Columns

Tags: Brazzaville Teen-Agers, Michael cera, Short Film, Your Daily Short

If Michael Bay Directed a Michael Bay Homage, This Would Be the Plot Summary

Michael Bay might just be the purest example (if you want to subscribe to it at all) of the auteur theory. He may even invert it, since he not only makes the film he wants, but it’s precisely the film the studio wants. He is both shaped by industrial forces, and shaping them, making American cinema even louder, flashier, and explosionier in order to compete with his extravaganzas.

As a director, Bay’s confidence is well-known and unparalleled. Many have said he’s essentially perfected his own product with Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon. Now he has no choice but to homage himself. If he paid tribute to himself, it would be a film that is simultaneously personal and product, an explosion-riddled extravaganza that folded in on itself … and probably took time and space with it, but that’s just the risk Bay would have to take to make the biggest summer blockbuster ever.

What would it be about, you ask? How could Bay homage himself? Easy — well, except for trying to describe the sheer mayhem which only Bay can wield, like a manic kid with a Spirograph.

The film would begin in WWII. The Germans have come in possession of a mysterious vessel. It appears to be an ordinary metal box, but intelligence reports that within is a substance that gives its users unspeakable gifts and powers. An operation is plotted, carried out, successful. The Germans, the artifact, and the users are all destroyed in a magnificent explosion that tanks fly out of.* This is the first 30 minutes of the film.

Fast forward to the 21st century, where Marcus Merrick, a LAPD cop on the edge, is preparing the biggest drug bust of his career. The LAPD manages to seize $200 million of heroin belonging to a famous drug kingpin named Ramon Guzman. But much to the amazement of the LAPD and Merrick, it’s not heroin. The substance looks like heroin, but tests as something that is chemically out of this world. Mysterious government forces swoop in, remove the substance, and the case stays off the books.  Merrick is left disgruntled, embarassed … and curious. He goes home to his hot girlfriend, Tiffany, who threatens to leave him if he doesn’t stop brooding over his drug bust.

Meanwhile, Rafe Goodspeed, a cocky naval aviator, is engaging in a routine training exercise outside of Pensacola, Florida. Something goes wrong with his aircraft, and he crashes into the sea. While he’s underwater, struggling to get free of his aircraft, he sees a vision. There’s something under the water. Something huge and glowing.   He is rescued and makes a full report, but his vision is dismissed as the result of oxygen deprivation. He goes home to his hot girlfriend, Kaylee, who threatens to leave him if he doesn’t stop brooding over his plane crash.

Goodspeed and Merrick refuse to take the official version of events. They began to investigate. Eventually — and by that, I mean they bump into each other at a bar — they meet and pool their resources. They realize they have to work together despite their different personalities of rule-breaking, cockiness, and general badassness.  With the help of Kaylee, who has a history degree, a high-ranking father, and a laptop, they discover the substance is an alien drug, but it’s not just any alien drug. It gives the users the power of a god. They can run faster, see farther, hit harder, and regenerate from any injury. The user can even re-grow their own organs. It was first found by Nazi scientists during WWII, growing and thriving on a meteorite that landed smack in the middle of Berlin. Allied forces thought that had destroyed all traces of it … but more just keeps coming from space. Worst of all, it seems to be drawn by evil intentions.

Merrick realizes that it found its way into the hands of Ramon Guzman not accidentally, but deliberately, and that it is already on the streets of L.A. To complicate matters, Guzman has kidnapped Tiffany, hoping to lure Merrick to him. Goodspeed realizes that a faction within the U.S. government, led by Brigadier General Francis Gould, is well-aware of what is growing within the Gulf — a supply that will never, ever run out, fueled entirely by the Deep Horizon oil spill — and they intend to use it for their own world-dominating ends.

Merrick and Goodspeed need to stop both Guzman and the government, as well as the alien supply. But how? Merrick recruits a voluntary SWAT team to storm Cuba, where a firefight ensues. It is the biggest firefight you’ve ever seen. Words, obviously, cannot contain it on paper. It begins on the ground and ends in the sky, where Guzman fires the biggest missiles ever seen from his own personal helicarrier, and Merrick retaliates on one of Guzman’s stolen jets (which Goodspeed has given him a quick crash course on “This is up, this is down, OK — now fly!”). Guzman dies in a fireball, and Tiffany is rescued, unharmed save for the midriff of her shirt.

But how do they stop the flow of space spice, and defeat Gould’s faction who would use it for their own ends? By stealing a space shuttle. (“I hope I don’t have to hotwire this thing!”) Accompanied by their SWAT team, they load it up with missiles and the most powerful bomb in the civilized world. They fly over the Gulf, releasing bombs, and destroying the alien substance before zooming to Washington D.C. to destroy the Washington Monument, where Gould has his base. While en route home, Kaylee taps into shuttle communications and tells Goodspeed she discovered that the source of the alien substance is the moon.

Low on fuel, they fly to the moon, where they discover shards of an alien civilization and the gateway to Earth. If they can destroy the gateway, they will ensure they place a bomb, the most powerful bomb in the world, in the moon’s deepest crater. As they are placing the bomb, something goes wrong. The bomb has a safety device which has malfunctioned, and someone has to stay behind to set it up. The oldest, hardest, and crankiest SWAT team member steps up, and reveals he is Jerry Lincoln, the father Tiffany never knew. Since Merrick is the man in her life, he must return to her, and Lincoln will be the father he never could be by saving Tiffany and all of Earth. As the space shuttle flies back to Earth on its own fumes, Lincoln detonates the bomb, blowing up half the moon. (The half that doesn’t control the tides, obviously.)

All seems well! Merrick and Goodspeed are hailed as heroes. As they celebrate beside a pool, enjoying an all-American barbeque, and watching the sunset play over wheat fields, gazing at the surviving half of the moon, we pan over to North Korea, where one tiny fragment of the alien substance lands near a military base.

Aerosmith’s “Livin’ on the Edge” will play us out to credits, while we realize we’ve been in the theater for roughly four and a half hours, and can’t hear out of our left ear.