I went to see Tropic Thunder reluctantly, but am very glad I did. It is funny, slightly satirical, full of fun and clever references (a number of which I’m sure I missed), and the performances are surprisingly good. Ben Stiller and Jack Black are caricatures of themselves, but in a good almost deliberate way, and Robert Downey Jr is an understated over-the-top little bit of genius. And there are a handful of big name actors with small but significant roles that are wonderful.
Honestly, the story is fine but not overly memorable. What works best in this movie are all the little details such as jokes, imagery, dialog, timing, and references that are so amusing, surprising, and well put together.
I loved it. I loved that Tom Cruise was in it. That long rant on the phone had me laughing so hard.
My friend who went didnt even know it was Tom Cruise until the credits rolled.
There was a part with Robert Downey Jr. saying a line, then he slowly starts to smile, the goes right back to a serious face, then his next line sounded like he almost ready to start laughing. It was when Jack B. was tied up to the tree, during those scenes. Im not sure if he was supposed to do that, but it sounded like he was gonna mess up the scene, but cause it was funny, they left it in the movie.
Definitely going to see this one again. Like, 10 more times.
I hear that the movie may face protests, or at least criticism, from the disabled community. Apparently Stiller (or someone) portrays an autistic man in a very demeaning manner, though I haven’t seen it myself. What was described to me is the equivalent of a white man dressing up in black face with huge fake lips and acting in a stereotypical way. If true, this knocks back the acceptance of disabled people by the general populace. Again.
Interestingly enough many of us were just in a country that’s famous for its acceptance of diversity, including people with disabilities – Denmark. Good for them! Bad for Ben Stiller.
What you say, John, is largely true. And, in fact, there have been protests and complaints by activists for the mentally challenged.
I don’t really know if it matters, but it is done in the context of lampooning actors and their craft. And, in fact, Robert Downey Jr’s character is a white Australian actor who has his skin darkened so that he can play a black man. In both cases the use of stereotypes is, within the context of the movie, questioned.
The movie makes more fun of Ben Stiller’s attempts to act like a disabled person, then the disabled community. There is a line between comedy and that, and it seems like some people don’t understand that, or maybe my line is just in a different spot than theirs.
“Never go full retard,” Lazarus tells Speedman. Actors who win critical acclaim, including Dustin Hoffman in “Rain Man” and Tom Hanks in “Forrest Gump,” Lazarus adds, play partially disabled. Those who go “full retard,” such as Sean Penn in “I Am Sam,” get shut out during awards season.
I know, it’s a joke. But do people really believe some people are partially disabled while others are “full on?” And that it makes a difference? Yes.
Actually it means you probably don’t know any/many people with developmental disabilities. That is, really know them as a person. It’s hard to know what makes someone else offended about something that’s not part of your life. There’s a place where you might say “That was in poor taste” or you might say “That was in really, really bad taste and it’s unacceptable to me.” Apparently that’s what some are saying.
Again, I haven’t seen it (and am unlikely to see it at this point). Also I don’t know what groups are making noise about it, though I do know that autism has a very strong political lobby. What that means is, if they handle things right, they can generate tons of publicity for the film wile drawing attention to their cause; a win-win situation.
Ironically, it’s almost always the most liberal actors, producers and directors–supposedly the most compassionate and PC–who “push the envelope” of humor and satire the most. I’m very glad that they do! But if this movie had been made by those on the oppossite side of the political spectrum, the few protests recently aimed at this movie would seem like the calm before the storm! All holy hell would break loose!
I am not going to argue what others should or should not be sensitive to or offended by. I am known for being particularly PC. Just ask Naomi - where is that girl anyway?
I thought it was funny, accepted it in the context in which it seemed to be intended, and had a good time.
If I were confronted face to face by advocates for the mentally disabled or such an individual him or herself I would be unable to apologize because it would be insincere, but must admit that I would feel some discomfort and guilt.
That pretty much sums it up.
Flaubert said, “To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.”
I am not stupid enough to be unaware that my position is debatable, so I’ll have to live with it.
Waste of time. Explosions are boring and the dialogues are simply incomprehensible. It’s all annoying American accents with bombs hissing and exploding in the background. Actors perform like pregnant monkeys on cocaine.
Watched first five minutes, skipped around a bit, turned it off.
)
