18 February 2009

I don't have a movie review column, but I like to pretend that I do.

Ben Stiller: Tell them what happened here!

Robert Downey Jr: What did happen here?

Ben Stiller: ... I don't know.


That about sums up Tropic Thunder.

It is my custom to write reviews on any major motion picture, video game, or piece of literature that I am exposed to. I won't break with custom now. Monday evening, I spent some time with J & R, the key activities centering around hanging out and taking in this film.

The movie opens strong. Three pseudo-movie trailers play, each to provide context for our cast of all-star actors, who in this movie play a cast of all-star actors making a movie.

Robert Downey Jr. plays the role of a serious actor, the type who always turns up in these intensely controversial films. The fake movie ad, for a film called Satan's Alley, stars Robert playing a monk, who is sexually attracted to another monk, played by (cameo!) Toby Maguire. Sort of Religious Tension meets Brokeback Mountain.

Ben Stiller is essentially Sylvester Stallone playing John Rambo. His MO is apparently the action film genre, the kind that get rehashed over and over until they are completely run into the ground. The movie he showcases in his trailer is apparently the sixth installment in his line of shoot-em-ups. Run into the ground indeed.

Jack Black's comedy movie reminds us of Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor. Just like in those films, Jack plays about eight roles, male and female, all in the family, all horrifyingly overweight and loaded with gas. Essentially the type of movie that you wish in your bones would flop but somehow becomes a huge phenomenon based solely on ticket-sales to the low-brow-humor slice of the population.

This introduction to the cast is easily the strongest piece in the whole film, refreshingly entertaining and well done. It successfully preys upon our distaste for stereotypes and typical the typical movie trailer assembly. We joked that, had we seen it in the theatre, we wouldn't have been sure whether the promos had actually stopped or not.

Once this part is complete, though, everything goes wrong.

The plot of the movie is simple enough. They are trying to make a movie based on a book written about Vietnam, but a combination of inexperienced direction, incompatible casting, and the interference of a megalomanical movie producer played by Tom Cruise is making the matter difficult. So, the man who wrote the book--who has been on hand the entire time and is clearly so far around the bend he couldn't poke sanity with a long stick--suggests that they take the entire affair up into the Vietnamese upland and shoot a "real" film of what really went on. The director agrees, and up they go. The director steps on an old landmine within five minutes of landing and is disintegrated, leaving the cast to wonder whether that was just a special effect and he's hiding behind smoke and mirrors, or if he's really dead. In either case they're left to their own devices to figure things out, try to shoot the movie, and get through the plot. They are, to put it bluntly, lost.

Let me underline this: None of what I just described is in any way entertaining. The actors weren't just pretending to be lost. You can use that word to describe about every problem the movie has. The gags are lost in the hamfisted overabundance of vulgarity. No, I don't have delicate ears or anything. I haven no objection to profanity; I've used so much in my life that I have no moral high ground to snipe from. I mean what I say. In any given line about 40% of the words are a curse of some kind. Cramming that much into each sentence screwed up the syntax to the point that whatever joke was being told became scrambled and unfunny.

The plot points and twists are mixed up and in all the wrong places. The character development is confused and uninteresting. The timing is all wrong. The overall effect is that someone had read the sheet music but had never heard it played, metaphorically speaking.

On the other hand...

It's fairly clear early on that these actors weren't making this thing for any other reason than they wanted to. Watching Robert Downey Jr. nearly crack up trying to deliver some of his lines, or Tom Cruse goofy-dancing his way through the credits, is proof enough of that. It's plain that they had an absolute blast making it. It's almost as if they just wanted an excuse to go out, dress up, swear a lot, shoot blanks out of firearms, and blow stuff up. In this, they definitely succeeded. And I'll admit, I got a cheap laugh or two out of the whole thing.

Looking at it through that filter, I guess the movie was a success. The boys had fun making it and we got a few laughs out of it. Even if it flopped at the box office, which I have no idea whether it did or not, everybody involved was too rich to care.

So, glad you had fun, guys! We did, enough to justify spending the four bucks for the DVD rental anyway.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

And I am reminded of Groucho (Julian) Marx's words on the Dick Cavet show. I don't know it verbatim, but essentially he said vulgarity is the hallmark of being a hack. It's easy to be vulgar.

And God help us, it sells, doesn't it?

I recently read the standard of American comedy is now the "gross out". It's beaten back all of those insipid romantic comedies.

I can tolerate a tiny bit of "edge" to my comedy, but only a tiny bit. It's always in the execution and pacing. Sounds like this movie had no desire to exercise restraint.

Think I would have liked it? :P

Randi T. said...

I think the whole point of the movie was to make fun of the movie industry, in that they were successful, including the likely deliberately weak plot.
It wasn't bad, but not one I'd see again.

Without bad and marginally bad movies, the good flicks wouldn't stand out as much. :)

Anonymous said...

I suppose there's the additional boon to horrible cinema: it puts food on Mike Nelson's table. *grin*

Lord of Filing said...

I think, dear, you would have been blind had you seen the movie, from the number of times I know you would have rolled your eyes. :P I don't think ol' Mike and company will tackle this one, though. Like I said the other day, they usually don't tackle movies that make fun of themselves. Their commentary would be wholly redundant.

I'm still dyin' to see The Happening with their overlay, though. :P

And indeed, Randi, you're right there. The cynic in me thinks maybe you're *too* right, that perhaps some movies are made intentionally horribly, to make the blockbusters shine a little more brightly when they arrive.

Or perhaps I'm just paranoid. :)

Anonymous said...

Riffing a movie that riffs movies would be a brilliant strategy. Mayhap it might reveal the inherent weakness of this gambit? After all, you said yourself it lacked cohesion and was only marginally entertaining.

I have mixed feelings of parody movies. I remember my dad took me to see Scary Movie long ago and we left in a highly disturbed silence.

Dear God, I nearly vomited from the combination of unrelenting obscenity and knowing I was watching this with my father.

Modern parody is like caricature. There's a world of difference between the five-minute caricature you paid thirty bucks for in the mall and an Al Hirschfeld print.

I suppose my point is, if you're going to make a parody, there should be an even higher level of design and art to it than even an ordinary movie requires.

I've not seen this movie, so I can't really say much about it, but I trust your assessment. Seems like it failed.

I just wish I knew why people are so drawn to crude, low-brow humor. It's fairly universal and historical, but I just don't get it.

I'd be tempted to believe there's an insidious force trying to purposefully make us stupid by foisting garbage-media on us.

But really, the commons are always going to be drawn to the easy laugh. A pox on 'em.

Randi T. said...

BTW, Robert Downey Jr. got an Oscar nod for this movie.

Lord of Filing said...

"BTW, Robert Downey Jr. got an Oscar nod for this movie."

I think he deserves it; his acting is absolutely phenomenal, no matter where he shows up. At least these days.

And I agree with you, Jessica, creating a parody of anything requires almost *more* talent than any other art form; the risk of making yourself out to be a pompous hack is very, very high. Your effort at that type of humor must be perfect, otherwise your would-be audience will eat you alive.

Anonymous said...

Yes, indeed! (slash-slash-slash)*

I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify that I've intentionally selected a broad brush to paint with. My intention was to stir up some healthy discourse. :)

I think we're agreed on that point, though. Mockery requires expertise and a deft touch.

Comedy is as subjective as any other genre. I'd be a liar to say I've never enjoyed a low-brow laugh. I'm convinced I am one of the staunchest female Stooges fans on the planet.

Yet, I was always more drawn to the shocking one-liners and well-practiced bits. A ready example would be the swearing-in scene in Disorder in the Court. That gets to me every time.

But I love old cinema. The Stooges will always be eclipsed by The Marx Bros.. The dialog and Groucho's delivery are sublime, always will be.

And who can resist those gorgeous Art Deco backdrops?!

Of the modern comedies, I'd say the funniest film I've seen in years is Napoleon Dynamite. It was completely clean, absurdist, brilliant. Every anachronism was selected deliberately, and the odd mix of past and present themes achieves a timelessness.

Is it genius? Debatable. But it is wonderfully designed. The opening credits? Fantastic!

It's what I love about Futurama. Overall, it's a triumph of continuity and most of the gags have two or three layers to them.

I'd cite the "Morks" from the latest romp. Obviously, it's a rhyming pun (orcs/Morks) and allows the audience a vicarious jab at the original work. A little Robyn Williams has always gone a loooooooooong way.

Sure, it's a gory hackfest, but that also fits the genre it's drawing from (fantasy RP).

We were discussing an even broader topic last evening. You told me about the male nudity in Watchmen.

Does nudity bother me? No. In and of itself, no. I spend three hours every Monday drawing either a naked man or woman. There is nothing erotic about the process and there's not going to be anything erotic about a glowing, blue naked character.

Now a sex scene? Yeah. I'm uncomfortable with that. I'm not a "voyeuse" in the slightest. It's my attitude toward sex that shapes this discomfort. I think it should be private, even in fiction. Obviously, my opinion is a rarity, so I've just learned to research before I watch. I've gotten bruised a few times (Hancock), but mostly my "timid" eyes are safe.

However, I will say I'd prefer to see more intelligence brought into the entertainment world as a whole. A lot less reliance on the flatulence and semen gags, and a lot more of whipcrack wit and fiery exchanges.

*caution: extremely obscure nerd-humor

Anonymous said...

Actually, my ears were the "damaged" organ when it comes to Hancock.