David Edelstein praises Robert Downey Jr. to the high heavens, and rightly so:

The Ben Stiller action-film parody Tropic Thunder is all over the map, but it’s worth enduring the botched gags, formula plotting, and even the racism to marvel at the genius of Robert Downey Jr. . . .

But there’s a bigger reason the portrait isn’t offensive: As much as Downey sends up the Shafts and Super Flys, he respects the beauty and weight and potency of the archetype. He drops his voice an octave (at least) and what comes out is gorgeous. He really does make a damn fine Negro. . . .

But Downey is loose as a goose: His flexibility—physical and emotional—is inspiring. His Kirk craves authenticity so deeply that you want to believe he’s a black actor playing a black soldier. And Downey craves authenticity so deeply that you want to believe he’s an Aussie actor playing a black actor playing a black soldier. This is a trivial movie, but the performance means so much.

He also nails why the Tom Cruise cameo doesn't really work:

The show-off cameo is by Tom Cruise in a bald cap as an obscenity-spouting Jewish mogul. He’s funny, but less because of anything he does than because it’s Tom Cruise playing gross. Watching Cruise rant and wave his arms, you can see the tension he carries in his shoulders. He never loosens up enough to inhabit a character—any character.

Ironically, Cruise is the one guy in this film who is most facing a sort of career mid-life crisis (like Tugg Speedman) and anxious to show that he can play any character he wants to (like Kirk Lazarus).

Anthony Lane:



And my favorite line:

Joe Morgenstern, in a generally positive review, says:

Tropic Thunder," which was co-written and directed by Mr. Stiller, is like a dinner whose hors d'oeuvres are far more satisfying and well-composed than the slightly warmed-over main course. Among them are the inspired mock movie trailers and the fake ad that precede "Thunder's" opening credits.

And then:

They also include Matthew McConaughey, who in the small role of a talent agent obsessed with providing TiVo to his client, all but walks off with the picture, and an uncredited, wholly unrecognizable Tom Cruise, playing a large, bald, obscenity-spewing studio head who in the privacy of his very large office shows himself to be lord of the funk.

I've read more than one critic who's singled out McConaughey's performance. I was fine with it, but didn't think it was worth special mention. Was anyone else bowled over by his performance? I thought his role was almost an afterthought.

Christian wrote:
: I've read more than one critic who's singled out McConaughey's performance. I was fine with it, but didn't think it was worth special mention. Was anyone else bowled over by his performance? I thought his role was almost an afterthought.

Wow. In my own review, I describe McConaughey as "looking a bit out of place in a role originally written for Owen Wilson". I can totally see how Wilson would have played that character in a way that would have fit the vibe of the film. But McConaughey? He never quite seemed to "belong", as I saw it.

I don't know whether the ROLE was an afterthought, but the CASTING certainly was, since they had to replace Wilson at the last minute after Wilson was hospitalized about a year ago.

That might help explain some of my [shrug] reaction to his performance.

On another note, today I received two e-mails of the "I'm very concerned for your soul" variety from readers who saw my positive review of this film.

I'm glad that at least one of the GI's (unquestionably Downey Jr.) remained in character.

When Stiller and Black came out of character, I stopped caring.

Well, McConaughey kept his shirt on for the entire duration of this movie, I think. That in itself elevates his role to a "breakthrough performance."

I hadn't thought of that. No wonder my wife hasn't asked to see this movie.

Philip Martin attempts a justification of the use of the "r-word" in Tropic Thunder.

Wow. Went into this with as open a mind as possible, even knowing its not my preferred taste, hoping for at least, possibly, some decent laughs. And man, what a waste of a few bucks. If I'd seen it for free, even then I wouldn't have received what I paid for. I can count on one hand the amount of earned laughs (barely). Just a horrible, uninspired waste.

What is it with modern comedies? I mean, is there no intelligence beyond boys hanging in a locker room? Seriously, it was like watching an amateur sketch comedy troupe who were given several million dollars to go and play in the jungle. Not good. Not good at all.

It seems you can most notice the decline in artistry in modern American cinema, when comparing modern comedies with the Golden Age. Try taking a look at this film, or even the majority of other Stiller films, or for that matter, Will Ferrell, and continue on down the food chain to any two bit Saturday Night Live alumn, and compare them with the comedies of Lubitsch, Sturges, Wilder, Hawks, etc. Not even close. Heck, for that matter, compare them with Chaplin, or Keaton, or the Marx Brothers. Even compare them to Woody in his hey day. Even compare them to Albert Brooks circa late 70's and 80's. Its just ridiculous. The majority of our modern comedies are simply an absolute slide into the sewer, just a bunch of fart jokes that quickly fade. Wow.

Pass on this one, for sure.

Haven't seen it yet, but it's good to hear a dissenting opinion. I happen to share your feelings about the decline of the American comedy, Wiederspahn, although your standards strike me as impossibly high. The world will never see another Preston Sturges, so what's the use of comparing him to the latest director off the Hollywood assembly line? The best funny filmmakers we've got are the Coens and Wes Anderson (and Albert Brooks whenever he can get something made); i.e., filmmakers who display an actual sensibility.

But the truth is most people don't care about artistry when it comes to comedies. To paraphrase Pauline Kael, a movie can be stupid and empty and you can still have the joy of a good performance or a good line. So how about Robert Downey, Jr. in Tropic Thunder? I hear his performance is great. Isn't that enough?

And Whit Stillman, dry as his comedy is.

And Pixar's team.

No doubt, Sturges is one of a kind. But, even if you take a look at lackluster comedies from the Golden Age, like some bumbling slapstick type of stuff, you can at least be somewhat entertained, without all of your sensibilities being assaulted by the banal bathroom gimmicks so prevalent in this film. The majority of the laughs come from sheer shock, like, "What? Wait. Did he just say what I think he said? Oh my God. Ha, Ha, Ha." But, step back and look at it objectively, and man, no thought behind the gag what-so-ever. I mean, I've been drunk before and said some pretty ridiculous things that made myself and those around me laugh hysterically. But, I sure wouldn't repeat those things out loud. Sad to say, it was the liquor talking. And that's what's going on with the majority of these modern comedies - its all liquor speak. Today, its a constant barrage of Tropical Thunder and Step Brothers material. Absolutely assinine.

Sure, Robert Downey Jr. does a fine job, and is arguably the best part of the film. But his performance sure doesn't make it worth one's time of day. Not even close. IMO. In fact, as a litmus test as to how great Downey's performance actually is (which I think could be debatable), I suggest we sit around with a group of friends, put on some black face and start doing our best Fetchin Stepit impersonations until all start laughing, then sit back and discuss whether or not their is any true merit to this type of performance.

And BTW, yeah, Wes Anderson and the Coens are doing great comedic stuff, as is who Jeffrey mentioned, Whit Stillman and the Pixar game. Plus, a few more here and there. But by and large, as my grandpa would say, its definitely slim pickins out there.

I was really looking forward to this one so I saw it last Thursday in the afternoon. There was one other person in the theater. One. I have to admit that I let all the hype about Downey's performance get to me. The Peter Sellers comparisons were being thrown around like this was the comedic performance of the century. I have to say that if you've seen the trailers, or the fake E True Hollywood Story (actually very funny), or the Comedy Central special, or the any of the other publicity then you've already seen the best parts of what Downey does. Unlike Borat, I can't see anyone in their right mind publicly imitating his character. As for Tom Cruise, it's already been pointed out that he's too stiff and mechanical to inhabit a character who is not Tom Cruise. At first "The Intensity" works for him since his character spend most of the time screaming at people, but once he tried to dance it was over.

Once he tried to dance it was over? I thought he danced only during the final credits, but maybe he did it earlier. I wasn't enamored with Cruise so much early in the film, although I did enjoy his performance, never more than during the final-credits dance.

If I've contributed to the funniest-movie-ever meme, then that's regrettable. I DID write in my review that I thought this movie is the funniest of the year so far, which surprised me because, like Wiederspahn, I don't usually like this style of comedy. In fact -- and I may have posted something along these lines in a related thread on this board long ago -- there was a period after I saw "Dodgeball" where I swore off anything starring Owen Wilson and/or Ben Stiller. Their track record was never all that strong in my book, and "Dodgeball" was so bad I decided to throw in the towel.

Sometime around that date, I saw "Zoolander," which I expected not to like but ended up thoroughly enjoying. Hey, I was at the beach -- cut me some slack! -- and it was the first Will Ferrell performance (another of the "usual suspects") I could stomach. (I thought he was great also in "The Producers" remake, which I saw later that year I think, but no one but me and Jonathan Rosenbaum liked that movie.) (NAME DROP! Ka-ching!)

So I approached "Tropic Thunder" with some trepidation. It won me over quickly, and I laughed at almost every joke. That's right -- even during the "slow" moments or the "off" jokes I keep reading about, but can't remember because I was probably laughing. Nor would I underestimate the crowd reaction. When a comedy is working, it's infectious, and this one went over BIG in the critics' aisle. That's something I didn't expect, and found refreshing and reassuring.

Some of these posts have brought me back down to earth. I have to admit that as much as I enjoyed this movie, I'm not dying to see it again. I'd probably enjoy it if I did, but I'm OK with it being a great one-time experience. Whether it holds up in the long run -- that's what separates the great movies from the merely enjoyable. I'm not sure "Tropic Thunder" will enter the pantheon, but I don't really care. I liked it while I was watching it, and that was more than enough for me. As for those who disagree, I appreciate the dissent. Honestly, I'm a little surprised to find myself so squarely on the other side.

I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but I wouldn't call it a classic. I suppose that since there have been so many really bad comedies lately coming out of Hollywood, that to see one that isn't totally lame was a breath of fresh air. I got some good laughs from the fake trailers and the lampooning of Hollywood egos throughout the film. Robert Downey Jr. was brilliant in showing how totally out-of-touch a Hollywood actor can be with the real world and the human race in general: spitting out high-faluting acting "advice" and gave his elitist white-guy view of the African-American experience by quoting the Jeffersons theme, all delivered in that Shaft meets Robin Harris fake accent.

As far as the controversy of the film goes, there is an element in much great comedy that does cut close to the bone of truths about ourselves that we don't like to admit. The film does make a bold statement about how Hollywood actors take on roles playing the disabled to prove their ability as serious actors, which is something that has made me uncomfortable for a long time. So I think this part of the film stood up for the dignity mentally challenged rather than denigrated them.

At the same time, the war movie plot was pretty so-so, and Jack Black really didn't need to be in this film at all. Tom Cruise's stiff dancing was kind of amusing, though. He might have fit in with the crowd on the dance floor at a suburban strip mall bar and lounge while some cover band was playing a Blondie song for the 80th time.

About midway through the film Cruise dances to the "Applebottom Jeans" song by Flo Rida (What can I say, my wife wanted it on the ipod.) and then again at the end credits to Ludacris. Don't get me wrong, I like that Cruise is having fun here and was willing to put on a fat suit and a bald cap. I just didn't think it was all that impressive or consistently funny.

The thing that really sold me on Downey's performance wasn't just the white-guy-as-black-guy dynamic, or his ridiculous cultural reference points, but the way he responds to Alpa Chino's pointed takedowns later in the film. He's clearly confused -- doesn't know who he is, or why he's so committed to the impersonation. There's an existential crisis going on inside, and his eyes tell the tale. It's sad, pitiful, and very funny.

My first thought was that this whole dance thing with his character was a direct reference to an occurence of last year when Tom Cruise got gutted in blogdom/celebrity news for being a horrible dancer. He was in some situation where he was dancing to a hip-hop tune and it was just ridiculous. I assumed that the final dance scene with Cruise was some sort of self-deprecation referring to this real life occasion.

Otherwise, I couldn't help but to flash back to the end of Beau travail which ends with a similarly clumsy dance scene. The narrative parallels between Galoup and Tom Cruise, or at least the characters he typically plays, are a bit unsettling.

That reminds me, I forgot to mention the uncomfortable feeling I got that Cruise might be trying to make reference to his issues with Sumner Redstone. His whole speech about hanging Speedman/ Stiller (a "fading star") out to dry and collecting the insurance money gave me that same awkward feeling I got in Charlie's Angels II: Full Throttle when Demi Moore, in all apparent seriousness sheds a tear and says something "I was awesome." or "I was beautiful." or words to that effect.

Yeah, I am seeing reference to that all over, though Stiller says that it isn't the case. Seems to good not to be true though.

Just found this in my e-mail:

Documentary “Rain Of Madness” Exclusively Available on the iTunes Store

Companion Piece to DreamWorks’ Pictures “Tropic Thunder” Available for Downloading

Hollywood, CA – August 27, 2008 – Beginning today, DreamWorks Pictures is offering an original documentary “Rain Of Madness,” for download exclusively on the iTunes Store (www.iTunes.com).

“Rain of Madness,” starring Jay Baruchel, Jack Black, Steve Coogan, Robert Downey Jr., Bill Hader, Nick Nolte and Ben Stiller is a companion piece to the hit comedy “Tropic Thunder,” which debuted in theaters nationwide on August 13, and serves as a documentary of the making-of the feature film. It was shot on location in Hawaii, at the same locations used in the feature film, and details the demise of the fictitious cast & crew of “Tropic Thunder”, as they struggle to finish shooting their film despite numerous shooting, budgeting and casting problems.

"We wanted to do a fake documentary about the making of the movie within the movie which is called "Tropic Thunder" -- not the actual movie "Tropic Thunder". The fake documentary focuses on the real movie's fake director, and what happens to the fake cast before they go into the real jungle. It's pretty straightforward", says Ben Stiller, one of the stars of the documentary and the director/star/producer and co-writer of “Tropic Thunder.”

“Original material for web consumption is a growing area for us, and ‘Rain of Madness,’ dovetails perfectly with the theatrical release of ‘Tropic Thunder.’ They complement and reinforce one another, while staying true to the comedic sensibility that Ben and his team brought to ‘Tropic Thunder’. We hope fans will appreciate this exclusive digital content and continue the experience at www.RainOfMadness.com” says Amy Powell, Senior Vice President, Interactive Marketing, Paramount Pictures.

DreamWorks Pictures Presents A Red Hour Production A Ben Stiller Film “Tropic Thunder” starring Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Steve Coogan, Jay Baruchel, Danny McBride, Brandon T. Jackson, Bill Hader and Nick Nolte. The film is directed by Ben Stiller from a screenplay by Justin Theroux & Ben Stiller and Etan Cohen. The story is by Ben Stiller & Justin Theroux. The film is produced by Stuart Cornfeld, Ben Stiller and Eric McLeod. The executive producer is Justin Theroux. The director of photography is John Toll, ASC. The production designer is Jeff Mann. The film is edited by Greg Hayden. The costume designer is Marlene Stewart. The music score is by Theodore Shapiro. The music supervisor is George Drakoulias. This film has been rated R for pervasive language including sexual references, violent content and drug material.

I would've thought the outrage over my positive review of this movie would've subsided by now, but it seems to be building. Here's a comment posted today by a reader (emphasis mine):

I have not seen this film however I have seen the trailer and am astounded by this review based on the cautions alone. Reviewer's quote "Will Christians enjoy it? The movie is full of foul language and uses the Lord’s name irreverently. But its target is not God or Christians”. So does that justify a review that as a Christian he found the film “the year’s best comedy”? Excuse me …. I thought that the term Christian means Christ like. So is this reviewer suggesting that Jesus (or a person who is committed to live as Jesus lived) would be okay with a movie that uses his Father’s name as a swear word? God took that idea as such a serious offence against Himself that He included it in the 10 commandments. The comment that the target is not God or Christians is such an outrageous lie that I cannot fathom a Christian website supporting such a comment. Talk about deceived – ouch. How could anyone who has any love for God at all say such a thing? Please, have someone (who believes in the gospel) sit down with Christian Hamaker and explain spiritual warfare to him and how satan just loves people trivializing the name of God and turning His name into a common household curse word. The target is not God??? Right. Christians are not the target? Right. A note to Christians who have sat through the film – excuse the sarcasm – or not. At what point did God’s Holy Spirit, who lives inside you, say “its okay, I am not hurt or offended by what this film is saying about me. Just sit back and laugh along with it and please don’t embarrass Me by taking a stand and walking out of the movie. Someone might see you and ask you why.”

I don't completely laugh off these challenges. As someone who's appalled by the frequency of casual and profane uses of God's name, the outcry about my treatement of this issue in the movie has surprised me. I don't endorse flippant use of God's name, but in context, since the film wasn't mocking me or my faith, I wasn't as offended by the language as I sometimes am.

Saw this tonight, along with Burn After Reading, and enjoyed it for the most part. I wanted to go back and read a few reviews of the film, and came across Roger Ebert's review. There's a portion of his review (highlighted below) that makes me question if he stepped out of the theatre, and then had someone explain to him what he had missed....



What was Roger watching? 'Cause this definitely is not how the story is set up.

I had to dig this exchange up just to say that Ebert now has a great explanation on his blog of why he tends to rate movies higher than other critics, and also higher than he himself did earlier in his career. Bottom line: he loves movies and is, as I said back in August, an 'ol softie.' Or in his own words, a "pushover." Ha!

I don't understand his reasoning that, on a 4-star scale, a 2.5-star movie is a "thumbs down."

Roger Ebert's Journal: "You give out too many stars"

Resurrection of an old thread, but--I just got to see this in a dollar-theater and it's been teasing at me since. I thought it was a very funny movie, with occasional touches of actual depth (the sight of Robert Downy, Jr's blue eyes peering out from the chemically-induced blackface was one of the more shocking visual in the movie, more shocking than any of the gross-out stuff, because it reinforced the film's duality between mask and reality ). Here's something that's been bugging me, though--and since it's not been mentioned [that I could see] in this thread, I thought I would put it out there and see what ya'll think.

I know it's a comedy--and I'm far from the camp of those who want to see, for instance, allegory in Pirates of the Carribean. But it strikes me as--odd? that

So, my question is: am I radically overthinking this--is it just a coincidence or a little bit of quasi-blasphemous fooling around? Or does it have an actual bearing on the movie's parody of the Hollywood system / the modern world (I think it's mocking both)?

Wow. That never occurred to me, and I'd be surprised (but intrigued) if it had occurred to the filmmakers. But I'm intrigued just the same.

Following up your idea, though, one could almost wonder if there were a sacramental-trumps-Anabaptist theme here, since: