Pineapple Express AND Tropic Thunder

I've been away for awhile, I know. Demands of the new job. But I'm returning with a double dose of reviews. Both comedies... both good.

Pineapple Express

4.5 Stars

There's something to be said for stoner comedies. Some people will get them. Some people won't. But they are generally funny if they aren't too reliant on cliched jokes. Judd Apatow is proving himself to be the Pixar of R-Rated comedies: he just can't seem to miss.

Dale (Seth Rogan) witnesses a dirty cop (Rosie Perez) and the city's most ruthless drug-lord (Gary Cole) murder a member of a rival drug cartel, and subsequently drops a joint in his panic. But this isn't any joint. This joint is some of the rarest weed on earth, the titular Pineapple Express. Since Ted Jones (Cole) is the primary supplier of it, he can easily track it to Dale and the dealer he bought it from, Saul (James Franco). Thus Dale and Saul embark in a game of cat and mouse, trying to stay one step ahead of their pursuers, all while trying to keep the groovy buzz going.

Apatow and Rogan have been ever pushing the boundries of the R-Rated comedy, ever since their break out success with The 40 Year Old Virgin. And this goes balls to the wall with action. The action comedy ground work laid down by Eddie Murphey in the 80's, coupled with the stoner-buddy comedies of Cheech and Chong makes for a potent combination, one that I was initially wary of. But I shouldn't have been. I should know that if it's done by Apatow and crew, I need not worry.

It could have been a dumb little flick about weed. It could have been a mediocre entry into the Apatow cannon. But the bar keeps getting pushed higher (no pun intended) and the boundries expand further and further.

I wouldn't say it's completely brilliant, but it is a mostly original entry into the stoner comedy sub-genre. It's one of the finer comedies to be released in recent years, especially amid all those *Insert random genre* Movie pieces of shit flicks that have been churned out with disturbing frequency.

The real hub of the film, the glue that kept it together, was James Franco. He takes a break from his more serious roles and takes on a role that he seems almost born to play. It's good to see an actor play a character that's out of his usual range and stock. It's like when you go back and watch Sean Penn as Jeff Spicolli.

I laughed the whole way through, and it probably hasn't been since Seth Rogan's previous flick, Superbad, that I laughed so hard and so consistently at a flick. Highly recommended.

Tropic Thunder

4 Stars

Perhaps my expectations on this one were too high. But I couldn't get into this one as much as I wanted to. It was good. I enjoyed it. I laughed a lot. It certainly wasn't a bad movie, far from it. But I kinda wanted more. But Tom Cruise was the bomb.

Ben Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, JR. play prima-donna stars in a new Vietnam War epic, who are dropped into an actual South-East Asian war zone when their on and off screen antics get to be too much for rookie director Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan). Stiller's action star Tugg Speedman, Black's comic actor Jeff Portney and Downey, Jr.'s method actor Kirk Lazarus unfortunately don't know they're in a real warzone and continue "acting" through real raids, real kiddnappings and real deaths. Hilarity ensues.

It does. It really does. There are times when there are several in-jokes, where if you're an astute observer, as well as being well-versed in war flicks, you'll get the jokes. I got them, but I'm a film nerd like that. Everybody did a damn fine job playing off each other, and no one stole the show (except Tom Cruise).

But... I don't know. I can't put my finger on it. I was just expecting more, I guess.

As for the controversy... To me, the retard thing wasn't that big of a deal. They weren't making fun of the mentally handicapped. They were making fun of actors who feel like they have to play a mentally handicapped people in order prove their worth as an actor, and the sometimes ignorance of the actual affliction. Same thing with Downey, Jr. in black face. He was making fun of "method acting." They're highlighting the extremes of each, blowing it out of proportion to comedic effect. And it worked.

I felt everyone did a good job. And especially Cruise's over-the-top cameo as bad ass movie producer. It almost seemed as if he was making fun of both his real life role as head of United Artists, and his role in Jerry Maguire. I dug it.

It was funny, I liked it, go see it in theatres... but to me, it was missing something that I just can't put my finger on.

Dear DC...

So, Brodie Fanns...

I've never really made an effort to hide that when it comes to the great Marvel vs. DC debate, I side with Marvel. I think their characters are better written and better developed. And Superman's kind of a pansy. He is. Face it.

Anyway, I came across this interesting article over at Movie Retriever, about the future of DC films. And it raises some very interesting points. Basically that while The Dark Knight is the greatest cinematic achievement known to man, woman, child and certain cave dwelling amphibians, two great movies out of three since the comic book genre caught fire seven years ago isn't exactly a stellar track record when compared to other comic book publishers, say for instance, Marvel, who have gone back and forth with their adaptations, but their top-tier flicks tend to be solid offerings.

So far DC's offered us two great Batman flicks, and a barely passable Superman retread. I would have liked to see Singer do to Superman what Nolan did with Batman. Forget the first franchise, and take it in a newer, more mature level. I don't mean "mature" in the boobies and swear words sense, but mature in the advanced story telling sense.

They had some great ideas for the future of DC and I agreed with some of them. It boils down to Keep Batman confined to his movies, Superman confined to his movies, set up a Wonder Woman franchise, keep her confined, and then bring out the B-Listers for crossovers (Green Lantern, Green Arrow, The Flash, Hawkgirl, Aquaman, Martian Manhunter). That's all well and good.

But I was discussing Batman, Superman and DC with a good friend of mine and came up with the following strategy:

Christopher Nolan, who is doing absolutely amazing things with Batman, signs a longterm contract with Warner Bros./DC. ties him to at least two more movies, with the allowance to do side projects if he so chooses (The Prestige, anyone?). But he is contracted for 2 more DC movies, at least.

The third Batman film needs to start introducing more aspects of the DC Universe, particularly Metropolis and Superman. And this is where he starts a creative collaboration with Bryan Singer.

For the next Superman movie... Singer basically needs to abandon the notion of tying the Routh Superman to the Reeve Superman, and take it in it's own direction. And he can start doing tie-ins and crossovers to the rest of the DC Universe, particularly Gotham City and Batman.

Now, Singer and Nolan do a full on creative collaboration for the subsequent films in their series'. Here's why... do a two part Batman/Superman flick, Nolan taking part I, Singer taking part II.

So the franchises would go in this order: Superman II, Batman III, Batman/Superman I, Batman/Superman II. In the second part, you could introduce some of the other DC heroes, though not in major roles. Oliver Queen/Green Arrow, Hal Jordan/Green Lantern, Diana Prince/Wonder Woman, and Wally West/The Flash.

You could do that to do introductions of characters. Then once you've got it all set, move on to the big Justice League Movie, and the runs of Batman and Superman with that, and spin off with the aforementioned heroes.

It follows an opposit pattern as Marvel, and it does away with the "Origins story" for them, because we're setting them up. Then once they get to their own flicks, they can jump right into their own stories.

It works. Trust me. You hear that, Joe Quesada. Put me in charge of cinematic development. Cause I'm a cat who knows what's what. Hells yeah.

- Brodie Mann