I’m going to attempt to review “Star Trek: Into Darkness” without spoiling any integral parts of the story; however, it is impossible to discuss the film without giving away some light plot details – if the above paragraph intrigues you, please don’t read the rest of this – just go see the movie.

The entire cast of 2009’s “Star Trek” reboot is back for this installment, and we join the crew on a planet inhabited by a primitive race. A nearby volcano is about to erupt, and it will destroy the indigenous people when it does. In an attempt to stop this natural disaster, Spock (Zachary Quinto) is lowered into the volcano by Sulu (John Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), while Kirk and Bones (Chris Pine and Karl Urban) distract the natives. Remember the opening of 2009’s film? This opening brings you even closer to the edge of your seat.

This mission, well-intentioned but not authorized by Starfleet, lands Kirk in trouble, and he is relieved of his captaincy on the Enterprise. Meanwhile, rouge Starfleet agent John Harrison orchestrates an attack on a Starfleet facility. In the wake of more danger, destruction, and other spoilers, Kirk reclaims the Enterprise to hunt down Harrison.

The writing trio of Kurtzman, Orci, and Lindelof do a fantastic job spinning a story that carries the core themes of morality, humanity, and death through the film from start to finish. I applaud the filmmakers for taking some of the Star Trek cannon’s biggest stories and re-imagining them for a new universe. Restarting the universe in the way Abrams did in 2009 legitimizes the decisions they make: the characters are the same, but the challenges, enemies, and drama of the original Trek stories are taken apart and rebuilt into something new and exciting that still retains the heart of the original.

The visual effects in this film appear completely superior to most; the film relies heavily on CG for many effects but it fades into the background – nothing stands out as overly cheesy or poorly composited, a truly impressive feat. Composer Michael Giacchino once again assembles a fantastic score, expanding on the original theme to set a score that fits the new Trek.

I really enjoyed “Star Trek: Into Darkness,” and I think the film does the universe and its characters complete justice. While Abrams taking over Star Wars might put the third film in this new series in jeopardy, it doesn’t take away from how good “Into Darkness” is. Beam yourself over to your nearest IMAX cinema and strap in for a spectacular ride.

Okay guys; let’s get real for a second.  This film is not for the faint of heart.  Michael is a pedophile.  This is what the film is about.  If that’s a deal breaker for you, then by all means feel free to check out.  However, let us not forget that this is a film.  Occasionally, a film chooses to focus on a topic that is distasteful.  As a viewer, you have a choice.  Sometimes a challenge is necessary.

The term “horror” conjures images of masked killers wielding blades and worlds of the macabre supernatural.  These films often take our innate fears and anthropomorphize them, allowing us to remain detached while facing them down.  It is much more difficult to face our fears head on.  In description, “Michael” is not a horror film.  No blood splashes on the screen and the familiar piercing scream of terror is never heard.  The film moves at an often slow pace and does not boast great bursts of action.  Nevertheless, “Michael” is a horror film.  It is the simplicity and absence of the typical that makes the film so frightening.

Writer-director Markus Schleinzer is a daring man.  He chose to not only tell the story of a pedophile, more or less from the man’s point of view, but to do so in such a frank matter.  It would be very simple to make Michael’s every action despicable, to lace villainy throughout his entire being.  Schleinzer resists this and smartly communicates that Michael is a man.  His perversion is an active part of his life, but not the sum total of his existence.  The man has a family.  In his family’s eyes he is a brother and a son.  They are not aware of his darkness and love him for the man they know.  As a man, he is not extraordinary.  You come to understand that to all those in his life, Michael is mundane.  He is quiet, uninteresting and unspectacular.  Most importantly, he is such a collection of uns that he is able to walk through life without drawing concern.  Our knowledge of his sick ways makes his interactions with others difficult to watch.  You want to reach through the screen and enlighten everyone to this terrible being, if not only for the boy he terrorizes then from a desire for retribution.

Michael Fuith’s performance sells the role of Michael.  The character is inhabited so fully that I imagine the actor must have experienced a degree of mental stress.  He is able to breathe life into this monster and develop him as fully human.  Besides his existence as a pedophile, there are moments that give glimpses of the torment within Michael’s head.  Each of these moments casually strolls across the screen, and it is Fuith’s delivery that can allow them to go unnoticed, much like the character in his world.

The film takes place over five months, but there is no way of knowing for how long Michael has had Wolfgang.  At one point a box of letters written by Wolfgang to his parents is shown, and it is full.  Interactions between the two appear to be routine.  Wolfgang is downtrodden and goes through the necessary motions, implying that he has been in captivity for a great while.  David Rauchenberger has little dialogue as Wolfgang, yet manages to perfectly convey the necessary emotions.  The character’s detachment is not overdone.  Rauchenberger captures the appropriate mix of adult frustration and childish release.  His performance is unfalteringly genuine.

Films offer us an escape.  Often we are taken to a world of wonderment, a life of adrenaline pumping excitement and places of passionate romance.  Some films refuse to allow this transport.  There is no egress in “Michael”.  This world is our lackluster world.  In its straightforward presentation, the existence of Michael makes your skin crawl.  The film does not revel in bombastic set pieces, allowing the horror to occur organically.  Schleinzer has a light directorial touch that tears you up from the inside out.  This is not a film to garnish repeat viewings.  “Michael” is uncomfortable and upsetting and it needs to be.  Jason Voorhes and Michael Myers draw upon a fear of the unknown with faces that constantly lurk behind masks.  This man wears no mask, but through Fuith’s honest performance and Schleinzer’s subtle direction, “Michael” shows us that the real monsters will not be so kind as to telegraph their existence.

Though, like most shows these days, the overall quality of the show started to dip as time went on. Efforts were made by the incredibly talented writing team and show runners to mix it up, introducing new characters, new story lines – but at times, things never felt as fresh as it did early on. However, regardless of that, I stuck through till the bitter end.

Last nights series finale was bittersweet, despite recognizing that is was time for the show to close, I felt the same way some of the characters did – that I’d miss my time with them week to week. The finale was classy, tied up any loose ends with the characters, and closed with a line that perfectly sums up the whole story – “There’s a lot of beauty in ordinary things. Isn’t that the point?” Well said Pam, well said.

There’s plenty new movies on Redbox, including the return of Star Trek (no doubt due to the sequel being released this week) - Other films new to Redbox are the Tom Cruise starred Jack Reacher, the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Comment below and I’ll send some codes to the first few posters – codes must be redeemed on redbox.com for rental pickup.

While I’ve got your attention, be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for more contests and great new content. Speaking of new content, check out this Interview with film critic Monica Castillo, and listen to the LonelyReviewer Podcast here.

Derek:  How did BOFCA come about?

Monica Castillo: We kind of formed, in essence as a way to raise awareness of the film critic scene, the local Boston film scene in itself and also to protect ourselves.  A colleague of mine who had stopped writing for a bit after he finished his Master’s thesis, he was kind of just burnt out on writing.  He was more or less kicked out by the publicists and told like, since he’s no longer writing he no longer gets to cover film.  There was no mediary term, there wasn’t any talk to him about it, [no one] ask[ed] him “hey are you planning to go back into this, because otherwise we’re going to tell you to stop”.  They just kicked his ass out, chucked him out.  So finally after that, he was like, I’m done fighting with publicists.  We kind of all [the Boston online film critic community] had a wake up moment, where it was like, wow these people could actually have a say in where our career goes…that’s a huge thing.

D: Little bit.

MC: Then we started to form that in order to organize, if we did have a problem we could send in a mediary or whatnot in order to discuss it with them.   And then the other part of that was also to talk more about the things we like to see in the Boston film scene.   So IFFBoston is a big thing, everybody did some sort of form of coverage somewhere usually.  I like to talk a lot about rep[ertory] stuff, and I haven’t really had the chance too much, but through DigBoston, they restructured my column more or less, so it’s a lot more focused on local, local, local.  So now I get to talk about what’s going on in The Brattle Theater, what’s going on in The Coolidge; [the] Alloy Orchestra is in town over at the ICA [Institute of Contemporary Art], so that sort of thing where I get to direct people to this awesome silent movie or this great Tarantino retrospective that I’m really excited for, [it’s] what keeps me going to the movies, day-in, day-out, week-in, week-out.

D: That’s nice, a lot of times if you’re not following The Brattle, or don’t get their email, you won’t know what they’re doing.

MC: That’s the thing.  And if you live outside of Harvard Square, or even near Harvard Square, you may not know they exist.

D: I mean, I lived in Boston for four years before I even knew The Brattle existed.

MC: Oof, yeah, it’s not uncommon.

D: The repertory scene does offer us something that we can’t really get anywhere else.  There really is just something about seeing those old movies on the screen—

MC: And with an audience.  I just saw “Thief of Baghdad” at the Somerville Theater as part of their Silent Film Series that’s going to happen once a month for the next couple of months.  It has live accompaniment, which is the best way to see silent film, it’s all on the big screen and they’re all 35 mm, which is quickly dying in the city of Boston.  I went to this last midnight movie at the Coolidge Corner Theater, it was “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, and Fox told them that they no longer have a print of “Buffy”.  It’s gone, only DCP [Digital Cinema Package].

D: That’s sad.

MC: It’s really sad.  But it’s flipping real quick, I think it was about, maybe a year and a half ago, maybe a little bit more than that, I wrote a piece that’s basically just saying how sad I was to see all this change because I’m so used to seeing, even as a little girl, I may have complained, “oh there’s dark spots on the screen, it’s scratchy, ew, why does it sound like that” and now I’m missing that because it’s all crisp it’s all clean.  It’s so digitalized that sometimes the color is off or sometimes you have that weird unnatural grain.

D: It loses some of its mystique.  I mean, there’s something kind of sexy about the big reel of film and everything.

MC: Yeah, and it’s different.  I’ve been in the movies where it messes up, where they accidentally lost track of the time and then they missed their cue or whatever, so you have that awkward little blank spot.  It was like something exciting.  Or worse, [there were] very beat up prints that got stuck to each other, this was recent, a couple months ago; the projectionist was like, “I’m going to die during this screening”, and sure enough not twenty-five minutes in, it jams and you see the film burn up on the screen.  So he had to go, turn the light off, cut it, splice it together, put it back in and rewind it just a bit to start it up again, and it played.

D: As terrible as that is, that’s pretty exciting.

MC: It’s super exciting.

D: You don’t see that anymore.  You only see it when Quentin Tarantino does a fake grindhouse movie.

MC: Yeah, it’s like, “oh, does that really happen in movies”.  No that’s real.  Santa Claus does exist.  Film reels are still out there, they are just getting very rare.

D: Do you see any pushback to preserve film from the newer more film fan centered theaters?  With Alamo Drafthouse expanding and the ArcLight on the west coast, they seem more film focused.

MC: They are more film focused but they still play mainstream films.  So that’s where their main money comes from.  I’ve been to The Drafthouse for repertory screenings in a half full theater.  But then you have something like the Sci-Fi Film Festival Marathon that happens over here in The Somerville and that gets pretty packed.  I haven’t seen it sold out but The Somerville also seats maybe 900, like upwards of 700; a ridiculous amount of people for your average screen.  But that’s like once a year.  The @fter Midnite series at the Coolidge is always hit and miss.  I’ve been in screenings where there is literally me, two other friends who are film critics who also like to go to the midnights a lot and then maybe a couple; all five people to go see “Flashdance”.  Not a big crowd for that.  That’s why I want people to go to these rep movies; I want people to support the programming that’s at these theaters.  Because it is an actual programmer that picks the types of movies that get played.  They have to book the prints, they have to ship the prints; this isn’t a little USB drive that’s sent in through UPS.

D: It’s the way they DID movies.

MC: It’s the way that it’s been done since forever ago.  It’s sad, but you got to keep it alive.  That’s part of why I love writing about it for DigBoston.

D: Boston has so much going on, but it seems that the majority of people don’t know that this stuff exists.

MC: That’s why film critics are important.  We do draw attention.  We are probably the only ones publicly stating “Oh my god, please check out this film, it is amazing, drop what you’re doing right now, go see it”.  There are so many films like that.  “Gimme the Loot” which played only one week here, did horribly, which was really unfortunate, but it’s in my opinion one of the best debuts by a new director I’ve seen in a long time.  It could’ve been a seasoned professional.  I was so stunned.  It’s such a great story.  Across the street right now, “Something in the Air” is playing, probably only until Thursday, one week.

D: Then wait for it to go on Netflix Instant.

MC: Basically.  Again, these small little films that otherwise people miss on their radar because it doesn’t have the multimillion dollar campaign behind it.  It’s not distributed by a big ass studio that’s going to push the trailer on every single film in the [AMC] Boston Common [Theater].  You’ll never know they exist.

You can find Monica Castillo on Twitter at @mcastimovies.

It’s the near future and things have gotten dark.  Corporations are weaponized and oppressive.  The borders of the world have been shut down, and a digital network is the last thing connecting us.  Memo (Luis Fernando Peña) lives in a small village in Oaxaca, Mexico.  His father keeps a stern grip on the old way of doing things.  The family’s milpa, or farm, is struggling thanks to the corporation Del Rio Water that has dammed the local river, requiring the family to look down the barrel of a mini-gun as they pay for increasingly expensive water.  Memo has little love for farming and instead has a passion for electronics and hacking.  He constructs an electronic receiver that allows him to listen in on transmitted communications.  The more he works on the receiver, the farther its range gets until one day he taps into the wrong signal, forever altering his family’s entire existence.

There’s a lot going on here.  We have an old Mexican farmer that’s set in his ways and does not accept his son’s different outlook on life.  It takes place in the future, but wait, it’s not too far in the future, just enough that everything is super shitty if you don’t have money.  The father character is a cliché whose sole purpose is to belittle the son and create some kind of emotional resonance.  He’s pretty useless and his general mediocrity is annoying, borderline aggravating.  The future setting is the part that is most intriguing.  The idea that corporations have taken over is far from new, but the film does a good job of milking it.  The television commercials and programming, like something out of “Robocop” (“I’d buy that for a dollar!”), do heavy lifting in an exploration of where reality television might be headed.  The television is identified as specifically American, but hey, who’s to say we aren’t the downfall of western civilization.  The future stuff works on paper, but good God, the effects are bad.  You know what; I need a new paragraph to really stretch my legs on this one.

Ah, that’s better.  I get that this is an independent feature, and that complex visual effects can carry a heavy price tag.  But the poor quality of the effects is inexcusable.  When you see the first drone fly across the screen you may have to stifle laughter.  The quality is on par with a Syfy (I hate that they spell their name that way) television movie.  It is distractingly terrible.  Accomplishing good visual effects on a modest budget is possible with an abundance of recent examples.  “District 9” crafted entire characters, “Moon” developed a full setting and “Monsters”, a film that was produced for less than “Sleep Dealer”, subtly used visual effects to not only create said monsters, but the entirety of the signage throughout the film.  This film’s subject matter has aspirations to be listed with those films, but visuals that share better company with “Sharktopus”.

As the film continues, it is more evident that this film’s concept might be the best thing it has going for it.  There are a lot of good ideas.  The problem is that there are A LOT of ideas.  Getting a job requires a person to get “nodes”, ports that are installed on a person allowing them to gain access to a digital world.  Yes, you will constantly be thinking about “The Matrix” whenever you see or hear about them.  The majority of the poor get jobs at factories or “sleep dealers”, a term that is poorly defined and from what I can tell has something to do with being worked until you pass out or die.  These sleep dealers allow for Americans to get cheap labor from Mexicans without them having to come into our country.  Um…ouch?  Memo also meets Luz (Leonor Varela), an aspiring “writer”, clearly introduced to be the love interest.  Luz is trying to make a living selling her memories online, a concept that is never fully explained.  Do you lose your memories for good?  How do you get images from a story someone else tells you?  Is this a dig on blogging?  Keep in mind; this is in addition to the theme of corporate power, oppression of the common man and an underdeveloped story of redemption.  Overall, it has too much going on without enough development.

Much of the acting is nothing special.  Peña is wooden as Memo, as is Varela as Luz.  The two have some chemistry, but for the most part the relationship isn’t believable.  A storyline involving a drone pilot piles onto the already staggering amount of topics.  Its involvement in the film’s ending is far too convenient resulting in a resolution that feels unearned.  Alternatively, the moments of the film that do not require visual effects are shot well.  Director Alex Rivera is able to capture the worry and hopelessness of Memo as he wanders.  These bright spots show a director who has talent when he limits his focus.

When you’re a kid having just one thing is never enough.  I want all the toys and I want them now.  Unfortunately, “Sleep Dealer” director Alex Rivera still thinks this way.  With his first feature film, he brings every interesting idea to the table.  The resulting party is crowded and not very much fun.  The film looks to tell a science fiction tale in a world only slightly different from the one we live in now.  The concept shows promise but by trying to do too much it is as lost as its main character.  Bland acting and lackluster visual effects only bring more attention to the weak links in the story.  Rare moments occasionally emerge from the rubble to display the skills possessed by the director, but Rivera should’ve been forced to look at all his toys and just pick one.

And while a good number of the tributes that have come pouring in over the last 24 hours have paid tribute and homage to a man that film owes a great deal (and all of them, you could argue, still don’t do his work justice) you only need to look at the names of the people who cite him as an influence to see the legacy he leaves behind. Yes there’s Tim Burton, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg and Guillermo del Toro, but there’s thousands more whose names you don’t know. Just look at the long roll of credits of any of the big movies that come out this summer. You’ll find a ton more people who have no doubt worshiped at the altar of Harryhausen.

You only need to look at his work to realize his greatness. The 7th Voyage of Sinbad. Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans. While every movie now trumpets their computer generated special effects, Harryhausen got his hands dirty. Literally. And the progress forward in special effects only makes you appreciate his work that much more. An army of thousands racing across the battlefield only means something to you if you care. If any action movie this year leaves you feeling kinda lackluster, it’s because the filmmakers forgot this mantra.

The reason people remember his work so fondly is because he made sure you cared about his characters. I remember the hushed tones in the schoolyard when Clash of the Titans made its cable debut. And I remember seeing it long after everyone else and, yeah, they were right, Medusa scared the living hell out of me.

The reason that people still watch King Kong is because of the emotion that was evoked from the titular character. That’s something Harryhausen believed deeply and tried to pass along. I know it’s resonated with me. Hopefully it will resonate with future generations, so that, while the approach to effects will change, the thought that goes into them does not. Let that be the lasting tribute to Ray Harryhausen and his work.

Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are teenagers in a small Arkansas town.  The two spend their days exploring the nearby woods and rivers.  Lighting upon a small island, they find a boat marooned in a tree, a result of the last flood.  While rooting through the boat, Ellis discovers food that is too fresh to be left by the previous owner.  As they prepare to leave, Ellis is distracted by a set of boot prints.  Appearing as if from nowhere, Mud (Matthew McConaughey) identifies himself as the boat’s mystery inhabitant.  Neckbone is suspicious, but Ellis believes that Mud deserves their help, unwittingly entangling the two in the mysteries that surround Mud’s life.

“Mud” marks director Jeff Nichols’s return to his home state of Arkansas.  Like his first film, “Shotgun Stories”, Nichols displays a deep understanding of his chosen setting.  The Arkansas of “Mud” has no frills, but manages to feel complex and real.  Small touches compound to add to the overall development and allows the surroundings to play just as important a role as any of the characters.

Nichols bites off a lot in his story choice.  The film is a coming of age story, romance and mystery but isn’t overcrowded.  Situations do not feel forced and arise organically.  There are long stretches throughout the film where not a lot happens, but do not misunderstand me, this is not to say that the film is boring.  Even with little action, the well-crafted characters are interesting enough that you will not want to look away.  The story builds continually yet subtly, creating a gentle rise in tension that sneaks up on you.  By the time the action reaches it zenith, Nichols has brought you so deep into his world that the screen melts into the theater.

What has happened to Matthew McConaughey?  This guy used to be the go-to hunky romantic lead with a southern drawl.  Saying he acted was typically done ironically.  A better word is coasted, and lucky for him he was nice to look at.  Somewhere around “The Lincoln Lawyer” he decided to start showing up.  He has been churning out great performances left and right, and even made a turn in “Magic Mike” seem oddly inspired.  McConaughey becomes Mud.  The character is charismatic, mysterious and a complete romantic.  Even though he ingratiates himself to the children and ultimately the audience, a lingering fear of his violent past, which is only ever spoken of, lowly hums through the performance.  Unconsciously you fear and pity Mud.  He is self assuredly lost.  I can imagine no one else as Mud, and for the first time in recent memory I am looking forward to McConaughey’s next role.

Mud is the title character, but he is far from the lead.  The story is Ellis’s to tell and boy does he.  He is an only child caught in a crumbling household and at only fourteen has a stare that communicates an ageless wisdom.  The term child actor carries with it a stigma, and any film that posits itself squarely on a child’s shoulders is assuredly risky.  Sheridan answers the challenge without a flinch.  The theme of love is paramount to the film, and Sheridan’s Ellis has an immutable understanding that often drives the film forward.  You will be sympathetic to his struggle and admire his drive.  It’s a grown performance from an actor with years left to grow, something that is quite impressive.

The rest of the cast is there to serve up any of the film’s remaining bits.  Reese Witherspoon is deliciously unlikable and Michael Shannon shows up to offer respite from the often heavy tone that he rarely is asked to deliver.  There are moments, especially those highlighting the mystery of Mud that feel slightly out of place.  These times are few and are little more than a mere distraction.  The worst offense the film commits is painting its villain with such broad strokes.  At times the antagonist is given conveniently abundant and unearned access, an inconvenient flaw.

The summer movie season is in full swing.  Superheroes fly onto the screen and blockbusters arrive en masse.  “Mud” will not break any box office records but fully deserves your attention.  Its writer/director serves a slice of the South with a full heart and rough exterior.  Through careful plot development and understandable characters, the film inhabits a space of worry and hope.   Matthew McConaughey is Mud, with a performance that will make you rethink everything you thought you knew regarding the depth of his skills.  With few distractions, “Mud” is a brilliantly crafted, excitingly delivered tale of love and the darkness it can draw out.

Bodybuilder Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg) is the head trainer at a gym in Miami.  Despite a strong and patriotic belief in the American dream, Lugo is having trouble finding success.  His job provides him plenty of opportunity to work on his physique but is lacking when it comes to financial stability.  With overdue bills piling up, Lugo attends a Tony Robbins-esque seminar in a quest for direction.  Lugo devises a plan to kidnap and extort a Victor Kershaw (Tony Shalhoub), a wealthy new gym client.  He enlists the help of fellow bodybuilder Adrian Doorbal (Anthony Mackie) and ex-con Paul Doyle (Dwayne Johnson).  Unfortunately, Lugo’s hubris ends up being larger than his muscles and the trio finds that sometimes crime can be really hard.

First off, it is nice to have Michael Bay on a film that doesn’t involve transforming cars from outer space.  Before Transformers took over all of Bay’s time he produced pretty entertaining movies.  Except for “The Island”…yeah, you’re right, the best part of “Bad Boys II” was the jokes in “Hot Fuzz”…ok, bringing up “Pearl Harbor” just feels like a low blow.  But come on, this is the guy that made “Bad Boys”.  Hell, “The Rock” and “Armageddon” both got Criterion releases, so that has to mean something.  The things that Bay does best are explosions, action and the occasional humorous and slightly inappropriate quip.  This is what made him seem like such an obvious choice for the Transformers franchise, things just got a little out of hand and, to be honest, kind of racist.  But, “Pain & Gain” seems like a return to the old Bay days.  The budget is right around $20 million, a number that Bay hasn’t been constrained to since “Bad Boys”.  Additionally, all of the action takes place in Miami, a locale in which Bay has previously been very comfortable.  Unfortunately, he has been gone for a long time.

“Pain & Gain” starts off fine.  As I’ve said before, Bay does action well.  The initial chase and police raid has a frenetic energy that jumpstarts the film.  The Miami sun bathes every shot and accentuates the bright scenery.  This first set piece does lean on the slow motion shot a little heavily, to a point that I thought I was watching a Zack Snyder film.  The film also really wants you to believe that it is based on a true story, mentioning it not once, but twice.  I’m sure that there are some actual events that occurred, it was based on Miami New Times feature, but we’re not children here.  This is a movie, and when you tell me it’s based on a true story, I know to take that with a grain of salt.  The second time it is brought up comes off as a plea from the filmmakers to really believe what they’re telling us, and it is just a bit much.

The first half of the film moves briskly, which is impressive since there is very little action and no explosions.  Bay does his part by shooting everything with his ever moving camera.  He treats a hotel conference room like a villain’s lair, with sweeping movement around Ken Jeong’s Johnny Wu.  The camerawork helps, but the real credit goes to the actors.  Wahlberg sells the high aspirations of Daniel Lugo.  He has great dreams and not nearly enough brains to achieve them, something that is never aware of.  I had no problem believing that this guy existed.  Dwayne Johnson…guys, is it cool if I just call him The Rock?  Doesn’t matter, I’m doing it…The Rock is great.  His character is utterly ridiculous and so much fun to watch.  The guy is 300 pounds of rippling muscle and manages to convey the vulnerability of a Yorkshire terrier.  Sure he will flip in an instant and knock a guy on his ass, but I had no problem with that.

Funny enough, it was after the first and only explosion (how there is only one explosion is mind-boggling) that the film just starts to lose steam.  All of the characters begin to move to different places and the brakes just get slammed on the momentum that was built up.  Not much happens and the audience is left to play a waiting game.  See, the beginning of the film shows you where this is going, so now we are left to wonder how we get there.  It plods along with boring and unnecessary scenes coming one after the other.  In addition, The Rock’s Doyle becomes an entirely different person, eliminating anything that was appealing about him and falling apart into a pile of muscles.  New characters are introduced out of necessity and by the end of the film everything resolves extremely quickly, as if one of the writers awoke to realize that they forgot to get to the point.

It has been eight years since Michael Bay last made a film that did not involve a childhood toy.  His return to Miami to work on a smaller scale is a welcomed change of pace.  Bay is able to make entertaining films in a style that holds your attention firmly.  “Pain & Gain” starts off like the Bay we remember fondly.  The sunshine bleeds into the theater and Bay makes even the mundane engaging.  The characters are charismatic and the actors’ portrayals are fun to watch.  Around the film’s midpoint, things go wrong.  It hits a wall.   Characters become bores and scenes stumble along.  Focus is placed on unnecessary things while all of the fun of the first half is forgotten.  “Pain & Gain” gives us a hint of the Bay we wanted, but wanders off to get lost in tedium.  For a film about fitness, it has entirely too much fat.