Highs and lows in 'Pineapple;' 'Tropic' laughs at itself

(Seth Rogan and James Fracno in "Pineapple Express." Sony Pictures)

To make up for my absence from this blog, my gift to you is a two-for-one review. Over the weekend, I saw “Pineapple Express” and “Tropic Thunder.”


“Pineapple Express” – Thursday night, Cinemark, 4721 South Timberline Rd. in Fort Collins.

I’m against the legalization of marijuana. Not because the use of bud is particularly harmful to people or because potheads grossly over consume their share of Cheetos and Slurpees. No. It’s because if pot were legal, it would take the fun away from watching goofball antics of potheads in movies.

I’ll admit, I’m not a big fan of pot . . . movies. The only exception I can think of is the Dave Chappelle joint “Half Bake.” I just don’t get what’s so funny about characters acting like buffoons and saying completely illogical and dismissible lines. It’s like pot smoking gives the filmmakers and actors an excuse for cheap non-sequitur dialogue and storylines not quite all the way thought out. But for “Pineapple,” it was those things that made me laugh my hash off.

The appeal of “Pineapple” is watching the duo of Seth Rogan who plays Dale Denton, a pot smoking, process server, high-school-girl-dating, almost has-been and Spiderman’s James Franco who plays Saul Silver, Denton’s dealer. Personally, I have never met a dealer but if I did I hope and expect for him or her (but probably him) to resemble Saul.

Rogan and Silver were a perfect screw-up duo. The best scenes were of the two, smoking and trying to figure out how to get out of this mess they were in, which leads me to the movie’s hangover.

The plot of this movie was pretty inexcusable, even for a pot movie, because it wasn’t far-fetched enough to be considered a joke and it took up way too much time. Basically, on his way to serve some court papers, Denton witnesses a murder. It turns out the killer, Ted Jones, played by Gary Cole, everyone’s favorite boss from “Office Space,” is also Saul’s supplier. Jones tracks down Denton and Saul through the rare pot Denton was smoking when he witnessed the murder. The name of that pot? Yep, Pineapple Express. The movie also has an oddball appearance by Rosie Perez, who plays Jones’ second.

But while the plot is under baked, the comedic bits between Rogan and Silver were the highs. I have to give a shout out to the fight scene between Roger and Silver vs. Danny R. McBride, who plays Red, Silver’s middleman. The fight between the three was easily the funniest brawl since “Borat.” It was a scene were I was literally crying and my checks hurt from laughing so hard.

But by the final 20 minutes, the flopped plot takes over and I’m just waiting for the credits. Rogan, who wrote the script, attempted to make a pot-slash-action movie, but he should have left the action to the big boys. Still, the jokes in between make the blunt journey worth it. (I think I got enough pot references in).

Grade: C+

(Ben Stiller playing an actor who can't act (not really a stretch) and Robert Downey Jr. playing a black guy in "Tropic Thunder." Dreamwork Pictures.

“Tropic Thunder” – Friday night, Metrolux 12 Theatre, 6085 Sky Pond Dr., in Loveland

Ben Stiller is hit or miss with me.

Hated “Meet the Parents,” loved “Dodgeball.” And well I loved “Something About Mary,” and liked “Zoolander,” or the parts I have seen, I skipped on it most of his fair, like “Along Came Polly,” and “Night at the Museum.”

Though I can’t put “Tropic Thunder” in the love category, I can firmly place in the “hey, that was pretty good” category.

While “Tropic,” which is about film within a film, wasn’t nearly as funny as “Pineapple Express,” it was a better movie. Though I didn’t really laugh out loud, the move definitely had its chuckle moments. Like everyone else, I was entertained by Tom Cruise’s role as a beefy, balding movie executive. But I thought the real surprise was Matthew McConaughey’s performance as the agent for Ben Stiller’s character. McConaughey spends the whole movie making sure his client gets his contract-guaranteed TiVo (a need I can relate to). I didn’t think Jack Black earned his screen time but his name alone will warrant some jokes. Also worthy of praise, was Robert Downey Jr., who played an Australian actor playing a black man (in black face, no less). And sue me, I think curse words are hilarious. My funny bone is still 15 years old.

The best line of the movie: Downey: “I know who I am! I'm the dude playing the dude disguised as another dude!”

The line seemed more appropriate for Downey himself rather than his character. And it’s that take the movie runs with that makes it fun to watch. The real filmmakers, Stiller directs a script he co-wrote, and the filmmakers in the movie are in on the joke and the actors on screen crack a lot of jokes while winking at the audience. Case in point – the four “trailers” that are shown before the movie, highlighting the four main characters. The movie and its characters know they are making fun of themselves and they do a good job of it.

Regarding the “R-word,” controversy – when Stiller and Downey’s characters talk about actors taking the roles of retarded characters to win Oscars, it’s a cheap shot at the actors not people with disabilities. If you don’t have a thick skin, go see a Disney movie.

Even without the LOL moments, I liked “Tropic” and thought the movie never felt stale or bland.

On a personal note, I was glad to see Jay Baruchel, who is part of Judd Apatow’s comic stable, finally get some screen time. I was a huge fan of the short-lived “Undeclared,” and I really think Baruchel can hold his own against the likes of Seth Rogan.

Grade B

'Dark Knight' - Believe the hype

I have some bad news.

The business of making movies just got a lot harder.

I saw a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight” and no the movie does not come close to all the hype. It surpasses all of it. Completely.

My hat is off to any filmmaker that even attempts to try to top TDK.

The more I think about this movie, the more I am convinced I just saw one of the greatest movies of all time. Maybe time will tell or maybe I am just coming off of only two hours of sleep.

Calling “The Dark Knight” a superhero movie is underselling what this film actually is. It’s more appropriate to place this movie with the great crime epics such as “The Departed” and “The Godfather.”

While I was enjoyed the first film, “Batman Begins,” it didn’t leave too much of an impression on me. I saw it in the theater on opening weekend but never had the urge to see it again. But with “The Dark Knight,” I have feeling this one is going to stick with me for some time.

It’s difficult to extract a movie of this magnitude and dissect into parts or scenes. Yes the script was brilliant. It rivals anything that comes to mind. The directing was nearly flawless. Director Christopher Nolan was able to capture panic and mayhem during fight scenes with SWAT cars, 18-wheelers and the ultra cool bat-cyle one minute then bring the movie back to cerebral level where our heroes battled against their own morals and conflictions. The score was frighteningly on cue, drawing panic as we watched the Joke become an “agent of chaos," bringing down Gothom Ciy and its white and black knights.

And the acting. Oh the acting!

I am completely astonished by Heath Ledger’s portrayal of Joker. I was pretty unhappy when I learned that the Joker was going to be the villain in this movie, only because I loved Tim Burton’s 1989 Batman and Jack Nicholson’s portrayal of Batman’s nemesis but what Heath Ledger did with this role was nothing short of outstanding and complete. Hannibal Lecter now as company as being considered one of greatest film villains of all time. It’s good that Ledger didn’t take up anymore screen time than he already did because he would have upstaged the title character. A long-running complaint I have had about superhero movies is the lack of super villains. The Green Goblin? Please. Even the bad guys in “Batman Begins” and “Ironman” were rather forgettable. But with “The Dark Knight” my complaint is now silent.

But Ledger’s portrayal was hardly the only standout performance in the movie. Christian Bale as Batman was strong and will probably go down as the best caped crusader ever. And in any other movie, Aaron Eckhart’s performance as District Attorney Harvey Dent would have been second to none! God, this guy is good. Maggie Gyllenhaal as the love interest of both Batman and Dent, was an upgrade from Katie Holmes. But as good as Ledger was for going over the top as Joker, Gary Oldman achieved the same greatness by playing Commissioner James Gordon with so much humility.

Put all these elements together and you have a film that is truly worthy of be praised as a grand epic.

From the opening bank heist scene, the film never lets go of its audience’s attention. I couldn’t believe a film could carry on like that for two and half hours.

No movie is absent of missteps or blunders, “The Dark Knight” included, but it’s not even worth the time or cyberspace to discuss the mostly insignificant shortcomings of this movie, only because this movie supercedes almost everywhere else.

My only complaint is not really a complaint but more of a concern. “The Dark Knight” is horribly dark, sinister and violent. Way too much for a film rated PG-13. I’m really disturb that any movie studio would even try to market this film to children, via toys, product ties or marketing. Yes, you don’t see any blood or gore but people are shot on camera and the themes in this movie rival those seen in “Silence of the Lambs.” Parents should be very cautious in taking children younger than 13.


Grade: A

"Hancock" not quite the movie expected

Will Smith forced to pandhandle after "Hancock" bombs. Kidding. The guy could carry an infomercial about thigh cream to a $100+ million opening weekend.

There is just certain things we have come to expect from a Fourth of July Will Smith vehicle. We look forward to the special effects (everything from alien spaceships to Salma Hayek acting), things blowing up and an accompanying song rapped by Smith.

But as Smith continues to secure his role as the world’s largest superstar, $2.2 billion lifetime gross and counting, he seems to be secure enough in his place in Hollywood to make films that don’t solely rely on familiarity.

After starring in sure things such as “I, Robot,” “Independence Days,” and “Men in Black,” Smith has taken a bit of a gamble, admit a calculated gamble, on his latest films.

First there was “The Pursuit of Happyness,” which didn’t include one single explosion or alien. Then there was “I am Legend,” which seemed like a typical Smith flick on the surface (Smith vs. zombies) but turned out to be more like “Cast Away” then “Independence Day.”
Now there is “Hancock.”

Again, looks like another film that follows the footsteps of “Men in Black” and “Independence Day” but I think moviegoers are going to be in for a surprise – whether that is a good or bad thing is debatable. The movie sold to audiences in its trailers is only the first half.

By now everyone has some idea what the movie is about. Smith plays a superhero without a cape, costume and from the look of it, a home. He has a drinking problem and begrudgingly helps those in need only to be chastised for his tactics, such as destroying buildings and throwing children into the stratosphere. He saves Jason Bateman’s character, a public relations guru who takes up the task of improving Hancock’s image. Then the movie takes a twist, leading those in the theater seats on an unusual and awkward route. The result is an uneven flick that makes me think that its stars and director were uncomfortable with the unorthodox script.

In “Hancock,” it seemed like Smith wanted his own superhero movie and why not, if Robert Downey Jr. can land one surely Smith can. And credit should be given to Smith in that he is probably the only movie star who can carry a superhero movie without a nerd comic book following. It seems Smith and the movie’s director, Peter Berg, didn’t want to make remake “MIB” or its sequel, so they sought to give audiences a different movie.

I saw the movie at 11:50 p.m. Tuesday night at the Cinemark theater in Fort Collins. The turnout was light but the movie did start showing at 7 p.m. so I assumed all the diehards went to the earlier showings. Unlike other tentpole movies, I couldn’t gauge other’s perspective on “Hancock.” No applauses or real big laughs. My roommate liked the movie but agreed it wasn’t what he expected.

Apparently, the studio could afford to make Smith fly but couldn’t cough up enough money for a tripod. The shaky camera look in this movie was completely unnecessary. I blame “The Bourne Ultimatum’s” Paul Greengrass heavy use of steadicam for this recent surge of moviemakers who for some reason think not using a tripod makes their films look raw and cutting edge. The special efforts were plain and ordinary and this movie had to have had the most forgettable, most throwaway bad guy I can remember in a superhero movie.

Smith was dependable as always in the movie and for the first time the token hot chick, played by Charlize Theron this time around, had a bigger role than just eye candy, which was a welcoming change in the world of superhero movies.

But “Hancock” is definitely not a family pic. It’s filled with a particular “a word” and graphic scenes of gunplay. I particularly don’t mind the curse words and violence but I’m sure a lot of families will. With a running time of 92 minutes, the pace of the movie felt rushed. And am I the only one tired of seeing Bateman play second fiddle in every movie he is in? The guy deserves his own movie!

I ended up liking the movie, despite the missteps and miscalculations of the script and action scenes and the lack of character development until the final five minutes. But with that said – Smith and Co. could have delivered your typical summer popcorn movie that we have all seen a million times and knocked it out of the park. But they attempted something a little off-kilter and though it stumbled a lot, it still delivered.

Ultimately, I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed with “Hancock” because it doesn’t deliver the movie most people expect from Smith on this holiday weekend. This movie is probably not going to give you what you want. I guess it’s up to you to decide if that is a good or bad thing.

Grade B-
Go see it if you liked: “I am Legend”

"Sex and the City" more than chick flick

To say “Sex and the City” is a chick flick is either a compliment to that genre or an insult to the movie.

I know I’m a tad late writing a review of SATC but I waited to watch the film with the friend that I watched the entire HBO series with.

Most movies that fit the description of a chick flick usually deserve the snickering and eye rolling. Yes, I’m talking to you “Maid in Manhattan,” “Made of Honor,” “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days,” “Failure to Launch,” or any other female ensemble movie with Matthew McConaughey.

What makes SATC a great film is the depth of the characters and their relationships with each other. Granted, Carrie and Co. are advantaged by having six seasons under their Prada belts before appearing on the big screen.

At first, even I was skeptical of the premise of a full-feature SATC film. As much as I loved the show, I wondered, why would someone pay $9 to watch girls chitchat about sex, love and sex over cosmos while wearing Manolo Blahnik heels?

The show seemed to end neatly enough – Carrie ended up in the arms of Mr. Big (sorry I am not calling him John), Samantha found love with Smith, Charlotte became a mom and found her knight in shining armor and Miranda learn to be compassionate and left her island.

So what could a two-hour movie add?

A lot.

The movie works so well because these characters are living, breathing Manhattanites whose lives extended beyond the HBO show. It’s so comforting to pick up where we left on our television screens (though the film does acknowledge the time lapse).

What amazed me the most about SATC was it told so much story – it’s my opinion that none of the girls played second fiddle to Sarah Jessica Parker’s Carrie – without feeling rushed.

Though I’ll agree with friends that the addition of Dreamgirls’ Jennifer Hudson was unnecessary and didn’t really add anything to the film, no offense to Hudson.
If SATC is the new definition of chick flicks, then I say bring ‘em on. But leave McConaughey at home.


Go see it if you liked: SATC the series. Grade: A-

'Hulk' a let down

Much like the title character, film is big, loud, dumb

Big Green Monster destroys things. Non-descriptive military types chase after with guns and tanks. Man wants to control monstrous rage for a girl with father complex. Déjà vu? You are not the only one.
The above synopsis not only described “Hulk”, the 2005 misfire, but also “The Incredible Hulk,” which came out over the weekend.
I don’t blame Marvel Studios revisiting The Hulk after only five years after Ang Lee’s misfire. The movie didn’t start the world on fire. Lee, now best known for “Brokeback Mountain,” tried to show the cerebral side of a superhero but you don’t do that with a big green guy who doesn’t talk and shows his emotions by smashing everything in sight. I don’t get the appeal of the Hulk but I’m not a comic book guy and something tells me neither is Lee. But the group I went with to see the Hulk were and liked the movie a lot more than I did.
So with Hulk ’03 scrubbed from history, the newly minted Marvel Studios (which is still counting its money from “Iron man”) set out to do right with Hulk. They brought in Edward Norton, swapped out Jennifer Connelly for Liv Tyler and added the definite article “the” and the adjective “incredible” and hoped to do the Hulk right with this new outing.
I don’t remember much from Hulk ’03 (which probably doesn’t help its case) but in watching Hulk ’08, I don’t remember much being very different.
Edward Norton, who contributed to the script, does his best as Bruce Banner on the run from those military dudes (the main one played by the usually-better-than-average William Hurt) but he ultimately fails and the second half of the movie is just loud ruckus.
So much of this movie doesn’t make since. When the military is after Banner, they only go as far as chasing him and shooting with darts but when he turns into the Hulk, they go at him with every missile, bomb and bullet they have. Why don’t they just shoot him dead when he is 5-foot, 8-inches Norton? That is just one example.
The final battle, and I’m not giving anything since the scene is heavily played in every ad I’ve seen for this movie, is between big, bad Hulk and whatever Tim Roth turned into when he took some Hulk potion. This is the point where the movie’s actors completely exit the movie and leave it to big cartoon character to fill the screen. This was too true of Iron man,” but at least that movie was exciting and enticing to watch prior and had this thing called “character development.”
Ultimately, Hulk ’08 proved to be unnecessary and trite. Which is too bad because with its premier film, “Ironman,” Marvel Studios was poised to become the Pixar of superhero movies. So let’s hope “Hulk” was a misstep.
Go see it if you liked: “Transformers,” “Iron Man”
Grade: C

Cloverfield Review

I think it takes great self constraint as a movie maker not to give the audience everything it wants. This movie did this from square one, with its teaser trailer this summer. The teaser didn't even give away the movie's name, let alone the plot - which, only salivated audiences.
As the movie's opening date approached, I did my best to stay away from previews, spoilers and gossip. Too often, those things take away from the movie experience.
I'm afraid people who go see "Cloverfield" expecting a movie they have already seen will be sorely disappointed. If they want a regular three-act movie with a center, core character and an ending that ties everything up, then they are going to be sorely disappointed.

Aside from some small qualms, like a script that was too lose and acting that was not great, I was very happy with the movie.I rolled my eyes a little when it came to the "we have to risk four lives to rescue one" story plot.

Not to give anything away but the character Chad was going back into the heart of the monster-infested city to save a girl he was never going to see again before the monster came.

The pacing of it was perfect. It didn't take too long for you to get to know the character and get into the action. And unlike most monster flicks, which usually only one money shot to give of their monster and then has nothing to follow, this movie was able to keep showing the monster and keep the suspense. And concerning the monster, kudos to the filmmakers. They had the daunting task of creating a monster that didn't remind people of the horrible Godzilla. And they pulled it off! I won't mention "the other horrible things" but those were great too.

Again, I think people's initial reaction to the ending is that they hated it because it wasn't what they were expecting and I would like to challenge moviegoers to let the ending sink in and then decide that just because it wasn't the ending they wanted, does it make it a bad one? Sure, it left you wanting more but isn't that good?


UPDATE: After reading Peter Travers' Rolling Stone review, I have to agree with him. Though the movie was entertaining, it didn't have anything below the surface - no subtext, no deep meaning.