Review: Ghost Town

Heavenly Creatures

I'll be completely honest that I wasn't really planning on seeing this film at all. The premise sounded like a bad television pilot and the entire movie seemed all one joke. I thought that maybe the brilliant comedian Ricky Gervais would be able to elevate it, but I wasn't betting on that notion. Then I saw Gervais at the Emmys on Sunday night, and out of a ceremony that was completely boring and self-gratifying, his quick banter with Steve Carell over the his "stolen" Emmy had me in tears all through the night. Those five minutes convinced me to eventually go see this film, and while it is not a perfect comedy, it still manages to make you laugh in enough places.

Gervais plays Bertrum Pincus, a disgruntled dentist living in New York City who has a habit of retreating from any type of social interaction. Bertram goes into the hospital for a routine colonoscopy, and upon his discharge, he begins to be approached by strangers who seem to disappear in the traffic. It is then revealed by his doctor (Kristin Wiig) that he died on the operating table for about seven minutes before he came back amongst the living. Now he has a whole team of ghost following him like the Verizon network and asking him to help with their unfinished business. Only one is tenacious enough to be granted help and that is Frank (Greg Kinnear) who believes he is still sticking around because he has to break up the new wedding of his widow (Téa Leoni) and sends Bertram to do the job who eventually falls for her.

Being an average comedy, the film follows the same basic rule of any other comedy. Gervais is obviously the main attraction, and his wit and comedic timing is spot on. Gervais has always had the ability to elevate the most mundane conversations and lamest comedies into something worthy (Stardust, Night and the Museum). In the beginning, though, it takes a while for Gervais to comfortably fit in with this character. You'll know as soon as he does because you won't stop laughing at his awkward way of handling things. Another great performer is Wiig, who has steadily built up a reputation of being a brief performer in films that manages to steal the show. A part of me doesn't want her to be in a major role that will eventually come; I want her to always remain an underrated performer. Kinnear is okay here, but the role is written for any kind likable actor who could play a borderline jerk (Kevin Spacey, George Clooney and Thomas Haden Church would have been good, even better, but more expensive substitutes). Leoni does actually tend to shine a bit in this role, but in a career plagued by films like Fun with Dick and Jane and Deep Impact, it's hard to see that as a great compliment.

Director and co-writer David Koepp has a familiarity in the sort of supernatural genre, as his film credits include the films War of the Worlds, Jurassic Park, Death Becomes Her and Stir of Echoes. He does not, however, have a lot of experience in comedy. The comedy that does work bears the sole credit of Gervais with a tiny bit of help from his co-stars. When it is relied only on Koepp, the comedic timing is poor, uneven and flat. Even his handling of the sentimental scenes with the other ghost trying to resolve their unfinished business goes mostly unfelt without the stringy score from Geoff Zanelli.

I want to make this perfectly clear: I am not saying that this film is a great comedy. In fact, it really isn't all that much a good comedy. Without Gervais, the whole thing would fall apart under Koepp's underdeveloped sense of comedy and melodrama. For all reasons, see this film for the wonderful Gervais, who provides enough laughs to keep you in the seat. *** / ****; GRADE: B

P.S. For those who need further convincing, watch this:

Reviews: Burn After Reading & Righteous Kill

On Burn Notice

Surprisingly, it seems like such a long time ago since the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan, re-established themselves as the great auteurs of our time with the wonderful and clever No Country for Old Men, and with all the Oscar talk buzzing around new films, it doesn't seem like it was only six months ago when the directing/writing duo picked up three statues a piece from the Academy. They are great filmmakers; there is no doubt about it. However, the long wait for the brothers to give us a riveting new comedy is not imagined at all. It's been twelve years since Fargo, and in that time, the Coens have been attempting comedy with no real success, when even their cult hit The Big Lebowski is only noticeable on that cult status and not as a serious film. Burn After Reading isn't the best from these legends of cinema, but it's a hot way to start off the fall movie season.

The film opens with Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), a CIA analyst who was recently demoted because of his personal problems. Rather than take the reduced security status, Cox decided to quit and write a memoir, an obvious connection to a recent political trend. This new, disgruntled Osborne is causing a rift in his marriage, and his wife Katie (recent Oscar-winner Tilda Swinton) takes the road to divorce aided by the fact that she is sleeping with a CIA treasurer, Harry (George Clooney). To prepare for a messy divorce, Katie goes through many of Osborne's financial files and pulls out sections of his memoirs, which she loads onto a disk for evidence.

That disk is lost by a secretary at Hard Bodies, a second class membership gym that employs people who don't look like they work there. Linda (Frances MacDormand) and Chad (Brad Pitt) mistake the financial records as classified CIA files and want to blackmail Osborne for its safe return (Linda is also looking for payments on plastic surgeries). The characters sink even deeper in bed together when when Harry begins to date Linda via an online dating service.

The plot may not always make sense, but I think it's a brilliant mark on how magnificent the Coen brothers are as writers. In the beginning, it all seems a jumbled mess, and you wonder how on earth all of these different characters are going to come together. Then, by some miracle, it happens. The path that gets these characters interacting are not always subtle, but it's fascinating to see the minds of these filmmakers unravel. Their comedic tones as directors are always uneven, as one scene can rely on smart dialogue and slapstick gags simultaneously, but they serve their purpose at making us laugh.

Even though this is a Coen brothers comedy, it still suffers from my theory about all comedies: there is a single character who, despite the talents of the other actors, manages to be the driving force of the film and makes the piece watchable from beginning to end (examples from this year include James Franco in Pineapple Express and Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder). In this film, it is Brad Pitt. Pitt is completely out of touch with characters that he normally plays, and I think he has a perfect comedic sense in this film. In fact, is shows people that Pitt is much more that what people would make him out to be, and with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button coming out near Christmas, I think we'll have a perfect talent arch from Pitt this year. The rest of the cast does fine and score big laughs (especially with Tilda Swinton doing the "mean guy" role she chose to pass over for Michael Clayton), none of them really are at the level of comedy they could be, particularly a little too showy Malkovich. However, the scenes between J.K. Simmons and David Rasche are priceless as two CIA heads that have no idea what everyone is doing and what they should do about it.

While the film is very enjoyable, it isn't perfect. For the first half of the movie, it seems as if the Coens are unsure at first what characters they think are going to be the most entertaining, so they bait the audience with light jokes about each setting, and because of this, the film has a difficult time settling in. Then there seems to be a moment when the story finally finds its comfort zone and begins to feel not so tense.

Everyone will compare this film to Fargo, and while it is nowhere near the level of greatness that film was, I appreciated its attempt to almost be the same film except with a complete opposite in theme. In Fargo, the theme was that those who appear to be naive and incompetent are really the smartest ones in the room. In this film, the theme is that those who have all the intelligence and the best means of getting information can be just as moronic and dumb-witted as the next person. It's an interesting way to put things, and it's ending reflects that mood (this one is not as complicated as their last movie ending). It's not their best comedy, but I'm honestly happy with any of their comedies that make me smile after The Ladykillers. *** / ****; GRADE: B





Right as Strain

Jake La Motta and Lt. Col. Frank Slade. Jimmy Conway and Tony Montana. Travis Bickle and Frank Serprico. Vito and Michael Corleone. Nobody does it better, and no one need argue further that two of the greatest American actors were Robert De Niro and Al Pacino. Between them, there is nearly eighty years of acting experience, and they have proved themselves to us that they are the best and part of a privileged few to be called that. In describing them, however, I can't help but continue to use the past tense, in particular they "were" the greatest. That is because recently, they have also joined another group of prestigious actors who have given up proving themselves in great roles because they already did that thirty years ago. Now, we get silly comedies and implausable "dramas" from the both of them. The thought behind some studio executive's suggestion for this film was that pairing these two legends together on screen would mean a really good film. Well, for those hoping that De Niro's and Pacino's first film together since Heat thirteen years ago was going to be as good will end up being disappointed.

Like most cop dramas, this film is held together by the bond of two partners that have been together on the force for a very long time. De Niro and Pacino play Turk and Rooster, respectively, and the case they're working on now is a serial killer targeting many lowlifes in the city (there's a plot we've never heard of before). To add some help, new, younger cops are brought into the investigation (John Leguizamo, Donnie Wahlberg) and their speculation concludes that the killer might be a cop (and the originality keeps on springing up).

It would be futile to continue on with trying to explain the plot because it doesn't really matter. The reason why people are going to spend money on this picture is because of the leads. Not even Curtis Jackson (the artist formerly known as 50 Cent) is going to get people to see this film when he has two Oscar-winners in front of him. It's a shame that the plot is taken so carelessly, considering writer Russell Gewirtz mined a great story out of Inside Man (which was hurt by some passive editing). Director Jon Avnet directs this film as mediocre as it could get, but I will say it's a step up from his previous collaboration with Pacino 88 Minutes, which I still consider to be the worst film of the year thus far.

There is also not much to say about the acting either. Pacino and De Niro are good, of course, but it seems like there are times when both of their personalities try to overpower the other. It's not a case of upstaging one another, but more so like there are too many big names here with distinct personas, and they keep tripping over each other. All the other characters are cookie-cutter types from all other genre pics, including Brian Dennehy's grouch but understanding lieutenant.

Had this movie not starred these two great actors, I doubt people would be heading in droves to see this film. I doubt that any positive critical reception it receives would be still be said. Despite these great actors, Righteous Kill is nothing more than a predictable, run-of-the-mill cop drama that's probably worth a rental on Netflix. I'd recommend people go watch the two other movies that De Niro and Pacino both starred in: Heat and The Godfather Part II. They didn't have that much screen time together, but maybe that was a good thing. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: C+

Review: Traitor

Expatriate

I did something with this film that I normally never do with any movie: I took a chance. There was very little I knew about this film before I saw it. I had sneaked a few miscellaneous shots throughout the trailer, but nothing really grabbed me that much. The only thing I knew about the film was that it starred Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce, and had a running time of 114 minutes. In retrospect, I'm very glad that I took that chance because the end result was a welcomed surprise, something that is rarely seen in films, and especially from one that is so politically charged as this one.

The story centers around Samir Horn, played by the always wonderful Don Cheadle. Samir is a Sudan native whose father was killed by a terrorists bomb. Years later, Samir is seen as a man who prospers by selling explosive devices to neighboring terrorists. During one negotiation, he is ambushed by the police where he and a fellow terrorist, Omar (Said Taghmaoui) are hauled off to prison. During their stay, the two begin to bond and after a planned escape, they two begin to partner up for their terrorist doings.

Back at home, two FBI agents (Guy Pearce, Neal McDonough) are trying to find Samir and stop whatever terrorist threats he has been planning. However, unbeknownst to them, Samir is actually a double agent. He is secretly working with the CIA and gets frequent visits from its representative (Jeff Daniels).

Being completely unfamiliar to this film, it was a welcomed change (and shock) to see the lead character in such an antagonistic role. Because of Cheadle's great performance, Samir remains a character to follow even though he is committing terrible acts of violence. It was a chance that I thought would lead to the filmmakers doing something very different. However, I was a little sad when it was revealed so quickly that Samir was actually working with the CIA. It seems like it would have been better to push the audience's acceptance of this character all the way to the very end. Still, director Jeffrey Nachmanoff does a decent job of shooting this film, which tries to be like The Bourne Ultimatum except not as stylized and not as good. Also, the script, which was developed from a story by Nachmanoff and Steve Martin (yes, that Steve Martin) goes into some pretty good intrigue while trailing off at some points, particularly in the third act (which is where films usually lose their footing).

As I said, Cheadle is an amazing actor. He has always made a point to attach himself to roles that do not define a genre or career. He can take dramatic risks like inde films like Crash or Hotel Rwanda, turn a comedic edge in Talk to Me or The Rat Pack, and even go all out in a big budget franchise like the Ocean's films. Cheadle is all professional, and it is probably why he is able to pull of this character. Taghmaoui was recently seen as a terrorist in this year's critical dud Vantage Point, and while he is showing some promise to American audiences, I wish he would venture beyond the scope of Arab terrorist. Pearce is good, but attempting an American accent from the South is not one of his talents, and I very much disliked the character played by McDonough. It was not his acting (even though McDonough is usually one note) but more so that his is given nearly every simple line that clarifies a point as if presented to a seven-year-old. While Jeff Daniels is a good, and very underrated actor (thanks to films like Dumb and Dumber), I would have preferred his character erased from the story all together, which would have pushed the Cheadle character being a terrorist even longer, a risk I think could have worked.

Traitor is the type of political film that paints its message in very broad strokes. The greatest evidence is probably seen in the title itself. Is Samir a traitor to the US because he is a terrorist? Is he a traitor to the terrorist for working with the US? Or are those who organize terrorist plots traitors because they betray the deeply seeded religious beliefs of Muslims? The argument presented doesn't sound like it has much thought, although the movie tries very hard to overcome that hurdle. Cheadle is the main part that makes the film work, despite some cowardice in the story. If anyone else has little to no knowledge of this film, then I would encourage them to take the same chance I did. I doubt there will be any grand disappointment. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: Hamlet 2

So Much Drama

Films today have this habit of going in and out of fads rather quickly. As soon as one film on a particular note is successful, everybody wants a piece of it. The latest to fit into that niche is the so called "indie comedy". Personally, I don't really think that something has a degree of comedic labeling based on a film's budget, but ever since movies like Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine, and Juno, there has been this suspicsion that comedies with big jokes and small budgets are the best way to cash in. This film doesn't really live up to that standard, which is a little sad. However, it does manage to squeeze out a few elements that can deliever some mighty hearty laughs.

The plot centers around familiar-faced-funnyman Steve Coogan, who plays Dana Marschz. Dana was an actor who had high spirits at one time, but never reached the level of stardom he wanted. He mostly just participated (as several clips point out) in informercials, bit roles on popular series and one of those annoying guys who proudly announces he has genital herpes in those awful medication ads. Fast forward to today, and Dana is a failed drama teacher living in Tucson He has a non-responsive wife (Catherine Keener) who has a love/hate relationship with a live-in board (a mostly mute David Arquette, his best role) and his drama teachings aren't going so well. His class consists of two students: the sexually confused teacher's pet (Skylar Astin) and the wholesome, suburban white girl who's a bit too frank about racism (Phoebe Stroll). They put on plays based on Hollywood movies translated to the stage (the show starts with Erin Brockovich). Then Dana gets thrown two curveballs: 1) A horde of Latino students have invaded his classroom and might cause a ruckus, and 2) drama is getting canceled because of poor critical reception. This inspires Dana to write "Hamlet 2" a sequel he hopes will save the school's drama department.

The plot of the play "Hamlet 2" doesn't really matter that much for the film. To be honest, the plot of the first play doesn't really matter that much either. The play being made is only a stage to bring out all sorts of jokes that attempt to push the envelope. No doubt that South Park alumn and co-writer Pam Brady had something to do with that. Not everything about the play really works, but sometimes just the onslaught of imagination is enough to be inspired. The actual production is also an element to the film that is one of its best qualities that's not being discussed. Anybody who has seen a play and is in awe of the constant visual spectacle will acknowledge the beauty in the production. One could care less what the actors are saying in those scenes, but it is very amusing watching the process. Even the first stage version of a movie is funny, especially seeing all the subtleties that are hidden in film being amplified for the stage.

Like most comedies, there is usually a core that holds it together and makes it worth while to keep watching. Very few comedies that I've seen have had a whole ensemble cast deliver equal comedic brilliance (Sideways and Superbad are the few exceptions). This film is no different, as Steve Coogan is the wonderful ray of sunshine in this film. Previously seen in this month's Tropic Thunder, Coogan somehow makes most of his scenes work, even when you can point out the place when the physical humor wears off or he started to improvise. As the play becomes more developed, unfortunately, his character gets sidelined for all of the edgy humor. Catherine Keener is no stranger to these types of films, and I've always loved her grounded personality and humor, making her one of the many multi-Oscar nominated actresses who are still underrated. Outside of Coogan and Keener, the rest of the cast really just drags on, including some very funny, but completely unnecessary, roles by Amy Poehler as an attorney from the ACLU and Elisabeth Shue as Elisaeth Shue (don't ask).

At the end of the day, Hamlet 2 just becomes an excuse to slop on a bunch of potentially offensive jokes without much meaning. It actually means a little less than an edgy comedy that would dissect high school theatre. I would have liked to have seen that film. Coogan already plays this character like a combination of every high school drama teacher (H-F readers: think of a mixture of Mr. Rose and Miss Stroemer, with a dash of Mr. Sinclair). Being a film person, an interesting take on the world of theatre sounds interesting, and I have any friends in theatre that have told me much that would make a trilogy Lord of the Rings-style. Sadly, the film doesn't do that, but thanks to Coogan and Keener, it tries. Just not hard enough, which is too bad. **1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-

Review: Vicky Christina Barcelona

Sight Fleeing

No other filmmaker has received such an uneven career as Woody Allen. His heyday was in the 1970s when he ended with his ultimate classic Annie Hall. The '80s was still good, with Crimes and Misdemeanors, The Purple Rose of Cairo and the superb Hannah and Her Sisters. The '90s was a little rocky, as I think Bullets Over Broadway was a mild success while Mighty Aphrodite was the type of comedy that I'm still not sure why exactly I liked. Then came the new millennium, and with it a streak of forgettable flops from this once claimed master of cinema (remember Anything Else? How about Melinda and Melinda?) Being born during that rocky decade, I didn't have much to be interested in with Mr. Allen. Then came the absolutely brilliant, wonderfully symbolic, cleverly ironic Match Point and the whole world rejoiced. Had the master finally come back? Here's the answer: Scoop. This film isn't a great one, but it does provide yet another change of scenery for the evolving director, and it's a quirky ride indeed.

Allen sets up this story with his most famous pairing of friends. Their introduction (provided by busy narrator Christopher Evan Welch) is put out as two people as complete opposites: the controlling, over-analytical Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and the spontaneous, open-minded Christina (current muse Scarlett Johansson). The two are invited to stay in Barcelona by a couple friend of Vicky's (Patricia Clarkson, Kevin Dunn). While in the city, the two come across the mysterious Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem, oozing suave) who invites them on a weekend romp. Christina seems to be the one more interested (mainly because Vicky is engaged to a nice, yet dull, millionaire), but then Vicky begins to have a relationship. All of this is seriously dashed when Juan sultry ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz) conveniently shows up.

The campaigning for this film has put Cruz as the main attraction for the film. She steals the show many times, and her constant rants are always made even better by the flighty Spanish language (a language I think she should stick with). However, I would also argue that her presence always harps on notes that seem forced. She never comes across as a natural character but more like a force of nature that blows in from a storm when it sees an opportunity to ruin a quiet moment. The real actress to campaign for this film is Rebecca Hall. Her character arch is handled with such delicacy that she goes through a subtle metamorphosis without even realizing it. Every scene of hers is so real. Johansson is alright, but I still feel a wall behind her acting. Bardem doesn't pour himself as much energy as he did for his Oscar-winning role last year (my vote still would have gone to Casey Affleck), but his charm and constant ability to change his persona depending on which woman he's kissing is something to marvel at.

The way that Allen directs this film is full of kinetic energy, as his films always are. He moves his characters around which trigger more events later down the road until all the action snowballs into a tension-peaking moment at the end. While Hall plays Vicky wonderfully, I don't know if Allen really writes her as a character that intentionally steals the show; I think it happens accidentally because of Hall's performance. There is also something about the strange relationship between Juan, Christina and Maria. The three become a legitimate "couple" (Juan and Maria share the opposite personalities of one person) and the dynamics of their emotions is really well played out in Allen's script. However, Allen also suffers from not having his supporting players doing much as he virtually wastes the magnificent and brave talents of Patricia Clarkson as a painfully obvious symbolic reference as being an older version of Vicky. The narration is also a bit strange, only because Welch's voice is more casual than I would have liked. I prefer the stern oration of a Hugh Ross (The Assassination of Jesse James) or the public informant of a Will Lyman (Little Children).

I am not so quick to label this as a successful comeback for Mr. Allen, but it does seem that he needs a change of scenery now and then. After decades of being isolated in New York, and his work diminishing, he relocated to England and there was his grand return. Then he began slipping in his new location, so he's moved again. The next great Woody Allen classic will probably come along when he decides to film in Moscow (I predict South Africa somewhere down the line). Still, this film is light, fun entertainment. It's not a masterpiece, but it puts a grand smile on the face, and sometimes, that's all we need. *** / ****; GRADE: B

Review: Tropic Thunder

War Games

As the summer windles down, the days start to get a tad shorter and the school bells start to ring to bring the children back, there isn't much to offer at the movies, and that is an ultimate downfall that has constantly plagued August. Its first big feature, the three-quel to the Mummy franchise was underwhelming, and the highly anticipated Pineapple Express was nothing more than a shallow comedy that disappointed many. And while it may make loads of money, I'm still not betting a huge amount on the last hurrah of the season: the latest Star Wars cash in The Clone Wars. Still, over the horizon comes this film, a witty, poignant film that knows exactly what it's mocking. And I loved nearly every minute of that self-mockery.

The story seems simple enough. Filmming is underway of a Vietnam war epic that has gone awry. The film's director (Steve Coogan) is incompetent, the author of the original story (Nick Nolte) is a little looney, and its three stars, action man Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), funnyman Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black), and serious thespian Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) can't quite find a way to work together. Two other actors (Jay Baruchel, Brandon T. Jackson) are there to try and anchor the craziness. While the production is being threatened, Nolte's character suggests that the movie be made in the thick jungle to add that sense of realism. That doesn't go over so well, as the principle actors, and primarily Speedman, get caught up in a drug trade in Laos and are taken into a real life war zone.

Of the three leads, Downey is the key to the film's success. Downey is a master comedian, and makes every scene of his 100% authentic. There has been some controversy surrounding what some are calling an updated version of black face since his character underwent a procedure to change his skin tone. In reality, it is not a racial poke, it's a jab at method actors who pour way too much into a role (the film's more vulgar take on the portrayal of the mentally challenged and the parallels to Oscar-winning performances I found more offensive). Still, Downey is flawless. Black is okay and does deliver one or two very howling moments. As for Stiller, I've never really been able to buy into his comedy, but there are some moments when his appearance with the ensemble lightens the mood.

The other great addition to the cast is the supporting players. Coogan makes an all too brief appearance but gives a rousing speech that an innovative director would, Nolte gives light in his role, even brief roles from Bill Hader, Jon Voight, Lance Bass and even a strangely placed Matthew McConaughey do wonders in the few moments they have. However, it is the much publicized cameo by Tom Cruise as studio head Les Grossman that reigns supreme. His bald cap, fat suit, wide rimmed glasses and foul temper make an obvious caricature for a Harvey Weinstein or Scott Rudin. His presence is a continuous riot, and it's amazing.

In addition to acting, Stiller also directed, co-wrote and co-produced the film as well. I've never been a big fan of Stiller's directorial career. I didn't like the one-note joke of Zoolander and The Cable Guy speaks for itself. However, Stiller has found the perfect way to shoot this film with its blend of action and comedy. He also has the thanks of brilliant cinematographer John Toll, and he lights this film beautifully. The script is also very funny by Stiller, Justin Theroux and Etan Cohen.

I admit that I've always had a weak spot for industry movies. Whether they range from popular entertainment venues (Sunset Blvd., Get Shorty, Network) to some that are more obscure (Boogie Nights), I'm always interested in films that dissect an industry, and this movie does it pretty well. The funniest parts in the film actually come before the film officially starts, as faux trailers (some of the best parts of last year's flop Grindhouse) spoof on action films from the likes of Sylvester Stallone, the multiple role-playing comedies of Eddie Murphy (wouldn't there be a riot if the film's makeup was nominated for an Oscar?) and the shameless award-hungry vehicles (this one involves the love affair between Lazarus and a monk, played by Tobey Maguire - the film's second best cameo appearance). That sets a tone that the rest of film tries to live up to. It doesn't always, as some physical humor falls flat and Stiller can be an unimpressive force, but I'd say this is one self-ridiculing film that offers a hell of a time. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: B+

Review: Pineapple Express

Up in Smoke

The Judd Apatow factory should be known to be one of the most productive machines working today. I've never really encountered a product of theirs that didn't result in some kind of enjoyment. It's prototype The 40-Year-Old Virgin, was a cute little film that managed to show us another side of Steve Carrell before he would later show off on the television, and the year's earlier showing of Forgetting Sarah Marshall, let people know that good acting combined with writing can mean good results even with a familiar premise. The latest to come out of that machine now shows us that it may be time to shut down the factory for a little while and give everyone a tune up before people start returning these products, declaring them defective.

Seth Rogen, who is already a regular for Judd Apatow, plays the lead role of Dale, a loser who attempts to survive his hellish job by dressing up in disguises while giving people subpoenas. During the day, he visits his drug dealer Saul, played very entertainingly by James Franco. Saul gives Dale the premium pot called Pineapple Express. Upon leaving, Dale inadvertently witnesses a murder by a crime boss (Gary Cole) and a corrupt cop (Rosie Perez). This starts a chain of events that follows most other action films.

Rogen is not necessarily a talented actor, but he's one that's been able to get by with playing characters that don't require much stretch and mimic his personality. Franco is a true delight in a role that is completely the opposite of what you'd expect him to do. So many of his lines and mannerisms are so well played, you'd think there is a real thespian behind that goofy smile. However, to paraphrase my second favorite Chicago film critic, Michael Phillips, that would mean that there's an actual motive behind his acting and would throw off the realism. Danny McBride also has a funny role as a friend of Saul who gets into a very funny fight, but the rest of the cast struggles. In particular, Cole and Perez don't act like their in a stoner comedy, but more so like clumsy villains in a Michael Mann film that still come off as menacing. I don't think that's quite the right tone for the film.

The film is written by Rogen and Evan Goldberg (with additional story material from Apatow), and it is reminiscent of the same type of amateur writing that was present in Superbad. I liked that earlier effort and remained a strong supporter for a campaign to have it nominated for Best Original Screenplay. This one, however, lacks the charm that the former film had. Superbad had juvenile dialogue, but it was alright because it came from teenagers. The script sounded like it was written by teenagers, and the characters represented that. Juvenile dialogue doesn't sound quite as nice when it is coming from grown men, even if they are high all the time. There is also something a little disturbing about a film that glorifies marijuana the way that it does, even relishing in how its lead characters get ahead by selling joints to twelve-year-olds.

This movie also has a strange taste in director: indie sensation David Gordon Green. Green has spent was seems to have been a lifetime of making obscure films that no one has seen, such as George Washington, Undertow, and this year's little gem Snow Angels. It's almost absurd to think that a man with this kind of background would be directing a film that is actually aimed at a large audience. However, it goes back to a thought that everyone has had at some point: the thought of what would happen if a good director actually made a movie considered to below their reputation. When put to this film, we get a sometimes imaginative film that indulges the audience is an interesting way. Still, it's not like a noticeable director like Green brings anymore to this project. Although, it does make me wonder if Green had directed Superbad, would it have been a bigger hit? Or even an Oscar contender?

Judd Apatow has another film coming out next year that will also star Rogen, along with overseeing Rogen in a Sherlock Holmes spoof. However, I'm hoping that Apatow writing and directing his next feature will be the tune up that his factory desperately needs. It's not that the products are bad, but they are declining. And it needs to happen rather quickly. ** 1/2 / ****; GRADE: B-