Pineapple Express

Not rated yet!
David Gordon Green
1 h 51 min
Release Date
6 August 2008
Action, Comedy
A stoner and his dealer are forced to go on the run from the police after the pothead witnesses a cop commit a murder.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?



Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)

 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Cross Walk

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Funny, Entertaining Pineapple Express Is Also Super-Bad
    Movies DVD Release Date:  January 6, 2009Theatrical Release Date:  August 6, 2008Rating:  R (for pervasive language, drug use, sexual references and violence)Genre:  Action-ComedyRun Time:  111 min.Director:  David Gordon GreenCast:  Seth Rogen, James Franco, Danny McBride, Gary Cole, Rosie Perez, Ed Begley Jr., Nora Dunn, Amber HeardEDITOR’S NOTE:  The following review contains discussion of adult subject matter that is not appropriate for young readers.  Parents, please exercise caution. It should go without saying that an rated-R stoner comedy from the makers of last year’s raunchy hit Superbad is not a film for Crosswalk’s target audience—but for the record I’ll say it anyway.  Pineapple Express—laced with profanities, vulgarities, violence and pot smoking—will likely be far too offensive for regular readers of Crosswalk. That said, and to be fair, Pineapple Express serves as a stark contrast to (and improvement over) the recent Will Ferrell misfire, Step Brothers.  While both push the limits of R-rated humor, Step Brothers is wholly reliant on its crudity in a way that Pineapple Express is not.  To draw a grammatical metaphor, Ferrell’s coarse content is “the noun” while producer Judd Apatow’s is “the adjective.” Distinguishing that difference (er, if you were able to follow it) may not make the experience any less offensive, but it does highlight the fact that there’s more going on here than most (lazy) movies of its ilk—narratively, thematically, and comedically. Dale and Saul (Seth Rogen and James Franco) are two potheads who live from toke to toke.  Dale maintains his buzz while serving subpoenas around L.A., and Saul smokes weed at home while also selling it—including exclusive dealership of the pot concoction known as “pineapple express.”  The malaise of their day-to-day existence is completely upended when Dale witnesses a murder and the killers are able to trace the “pineapple” marijuana butt he dropped at the scene back to Saul. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-1'); }); The killer is a drug lord who employs corrupt cops, he’s at war with an Asian drug kingpin and now Dale and Saul are caught in the middle with nowhere to turn and are on the run.  Subsequently, this stoner comedy quickly becomes an action comedy, much more in the spirit of The Blues Brothers than Cheech & Chong.  Fueled by unpredictable characters, aggressive (and occasionally brutal) fight scenes and impressively-staged car chases, the action is inspired and rarely takes a breather. When it does, the characters are not only allowed to develop but grow.  Once only eager to reach his next high, Dale comes to realize that the results of their constant buzz are consistently bad, and both recognize how it sabotages their long-term goals.  Though the film never explicitly becomes anti-dope, it does serve as a (albeit affectionate) rejection of a baked lifestyle. Rogen and Franco elevate their performances above one-note stoner clichés by creating a sincere “bromance” between two guys who are, in many ways, very different (with pot being their only common interest); no doubt the chemistry is an extension of their previous work on the short-lived TV series Freaks & Geeks (the guys here could plausibly be adult versions of those characters).  They also invest fully into every fall, punch, leap and tumble, so much so that they no doubt finished the shoot with many bruises and cuts.  To that end, Rogen’s screenplay (co-written with Superbad collaborator Evan Goldberg) hilariously tweaks archetypal action sequences in small but inventive ways, and indie-director David Gordon Green’s 1970s visual flair brings another level of inspiration and energy to this ’80s action homage.  If Quentin Tarantino were to remake Beverly Hills Cop, it’d probably feel a lot like this manic, violent and often foul ride. So at the end of it all, what’s a discerning Christian to make of Pineapple Express?  While I won’t presume to answer that question categorically, I will say this:  the Apatow crew may have a lot of things to repent for, but their gifts aren’t among them.CAUTIONS: googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); if (gptClientWidth >= 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-3'); }); Drugs/Alcohol:  Pot smoking throughout, including experimental creations like “the cross” doobie. Language/Profanity:  All levels of profanity used throughout, including consistent usage of sexually crude language and graphic scatological humor. Sex/Nudity:  A man’s naked backside.  Dale—in his 20s—dates an 18-year-old high school student, but there’s no sexual content or activity.  Saul uses his thumb to make a crude sexual gesture.  A reference is made to God’s “female” genitalia. Violence/Other:  A man is murdered point-blank in the back of the head.  Numerous examples of violent gunplay, including people being shot point-blank multiple times, machine gun fire repeated into people, bloody fights, accidents, and destructive car chases. Jeffrey Huston is a film director, writer and producer at Steelehouse Productions in Tulsa, Okla.  He is also cohost of the "Steelehouse Podcast,” along with Steelehouse Executive Creative Mark Steele, where each week they discuss God in pop culture.  To listen to the weekly podcast, please visit or click here.  You can also subscribe to the "Steelehouse Podcast” through iTunes.  ]]>
    (Review Source)

Kelly Jane Torrance2
The Weekly Standard

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • EDGE: 'Pineapple' tokes out of both sides of its mouth

    Nobody likes a hypocrite - that's why some political scandals provoke more outrage than others. Published August 8, 2008

    (Review Source)
  • 'This Is The End' is a hilarious apocalyptic tale
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff5
PJ Media

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Seth Rogen's 10 Best Movies
    Lifestyle var dataLayer = window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; dataLayer.push({ 'videoName': 'The Interview - Official Teaser Trailer - In Theaters This Christmas', 'videoType': 'Curated' }); When someone is threatened by a murderous dictator it's usually not something to cheer and laugh about. Unless it's my generation's funniest actor-filmmaker being intimidated in response to a satirical film about the tyrant's assassination.When one of the world's most evil men declares your work "an act of war" you're doing something right. The Verge reported:The government of North Korea today issued an unsurprisingly harsh statement about Seth Rogen's upcoming film, The Interview, denouncing the action-comedy as an "act of war." In the movie, Rogen and James Franco star as two journalists who, after scoring an interview with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, are ordered by the CIA to assassinate him. In a statement published by the state-run KCNA news agency, a foreign ministry spokesman characterized Rogen as a "gangster filmmaker" and called upon the US to block the film, according to a report from the AFP."The act of making and screening such a movie that portrays an attack on our top leadership... is a most wanton act of terror and act of war, and is absolutely intolerable," the spokesman said, adding that the US would face a "resolute and merciless response" if it fails to ban the film, which is slated for release later this year.Rogen was born in 1982 and is 32 now -- making him 2 years older than me and part of my generational cohort of those born 1981-1985, which I argued in this article here should best be understood as stuck between generations, the Millennial-Xer Blend. (Those born 1976-1980 are Millennial-leaning Gen-Xers. Those born 1986-1990 are X-er leaning Millennials. I think it's only those born in '71-'75 and '91-'95 who tend to most embody the peer personality traits associated with the Generation X and Millennial stereotypes.)So I'm a fan. I think Rogen's consistently funny and now that he's expanded into screenwriting and directing he's  shining. He has real potential to be our generation's Woody Allen, minus all the narcissistic and creepy stuff. (Rogen doesn't seem to be particularly self-obsessed and most of his films have a moral core amidst the skillful vulgarity.)Here's how I'd rank his 10 best so far. We'll have to wait until October 10 to find out where The Interview ranks among them... class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 11 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • The Green Hornet: Nice Buzz, No Sting
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media You know going in that something’s up with The Green Hornet. A superhero movie starring schlubby Seth Rogen and directed by the French visual magician Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)? Like Watchmen, this isn’t so much a superhero movie as a critique of same -- this time from a comic point of view.In that sense, it's the inverse of the old 1966 ABC TV series, which for the most part played it straight (and would help propel Bruce Lee to eventual superstardom along the way), in contradistinction to the network's infamously campy pop art take on Batman.Rogen, who co-wrote the script with his boyhood friend Evan Goldberg, with whom he also wrote Superbad and Pineapple Express, stars as a wealthy playboy like Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark. But Rogen’s character, Britt Reid, is a spoiled, whiny slacker, so cosseted that the story really gets rolling when he discovers someone has bungled his cappuccino. By this point, he has lost his father, an L.A. newspaper magnate, to a fatal bee sting -- but it’s the bad java that really stings Britt.Demanding to know the details behind his morning pick-me-up, he encounters an obscure servant on his gigantic estate whom he’s never met -- Kato (Taiwanese pop singer Jay Chou). Not only can Kato make a dazzling cup of joe, he’s also a martial-arts master, designer, engineer, mechanic, ladykiller and all-around genius. Picture an ass-kicking Leonardo da Vinci in black leather and motorcycle cap -- who happens to work as a gofer. “We’ve both been completely wasting our potential,” Britt tells him. “You, a little more than me.” Soon, the two of them adopt disguises (Britt wears a green mask) for their first covert mission -- sawing the head off a bronze statue of Britt’s father, who used to be mean to his son.By accident, the two of them become masked crime fighters taking on L.A.’s organized crime boss Chudnofsky (a funny and merciless Christoph Waltz of Inglourious Basterds), and since Britt has inherited his father’s newspaper, he splashes the news about himself and his sidekick all over Page One. He even comes up with a nickname for the trench-coated crusader nobody but Kato knows is his alter ego: “The Green ... Bee!” Kato suggests “Hornet” sounds cooler. Also, Kato doesn’t really like being called a sidekick, especially when his boss is an oaf. “I’m Indy, you’re Short Round, " Britt insists. He tells Kato to back off Britt’s pretty new secretary (Cameron Diaz), who seems to have an encyclopedic knowledge of crime for a temp and comes up with surprisingly perspicacious tips about what Chudnofsky might do next. But she, like everyone else, thinks Britt is a jerk. It doesn’t help that he says she’s in the “twilight” of her years. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • When Films Are Ruined by 'Special Features'
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    PJ Media Read the entire story here. class="pages"> ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • When Films are Ruined by 'Special Features'
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Zombie Recently I rented a DVD of the award-winning 2003 documentary Winged Migration. Famed as one of the most unique and beautiful films ever made, Winged Migration literally takes the viewer up into the sky as it follows birds on their long-distance seasonal flights around the world. Somehow, seemingly as if by magic, the cameras are right there amongst the migrating birds, and you feel as if you are flying thousands of feet in the air with your fellow avians over landscapes which range from the picturesque to the breathtaking. When the film was over, all I could say was "Wow!"And then, I made the terrible, terrible mistake of clicking on "Special Features" in the DVD menu. Ten minutes later, I realized retroactively that I didn't like the film after all. In fact, I hated it.Why? Because among the special features was one of those short "The Making of..." mini-documentaries which divulged the secrets of how they filmed Winged Migration. And it revealed that the film was all a lie. A beautiful lie, but a lie nonetheless.The filmmakers had not documented any actual migrations. Not only were the birds not migrating, they weren't even wild birds! They were basically trained actors, with wings. The "making of..." documentary showed, step by step, how they had hand-raised some migratory birds from the moment they hatched and had, using the "imprinting" techniques of Konrad Lorenz, tricked the birds into thinking that the cameramen were their mommies. As explained in Wikipedia, "The filial imprinting of birds was a primary technique used to create the movie [Winged Migration], which contains a great deal of footage of migratory birds in flight. The birds imprinted on handlers, who wore yellow jackets and honked horns constantly. The birds were then trained to fly along with a variety of aircraft, primarily ultralights."So to film the birds "migrating" somewhere, the director actually just attached a camera to a motorized hang glider (called an "ultralight"), then let the birds out of their cages and started filming as the birds followed the ultralight around on a short flight, after which they all landed and were put back in cages. To make matters worse, the birds didn't follow the ultralight from region to region on long-distance flights, as the viewer was led to believe. No, as revealed to my shock in the "making of..." documentary, the filmmakers packed the birds away in shipping containers and actually trucked them around the world (on vehicles or in jetliner cargo holds) and then unpacked them only when they were at some pre-determined spot chosen by location scouts for its natural beauty. At which point, the ultralight would again take off, and the "migrating birds" would follow it around for a few minutes, before landing and getting back in the cages.The final straw came when the director showed how even apparently serendipitous moments of passing "local color" were in fact all carefully constructed artificial props. That water buffalo wandering by in the distance? Someone pushed it into the scene. That quaint villager? A paid extra.Great God in heaven! What kind of monstrosity is this? The entire film was a deception. I felt like a drunken sailor waking up next to the previous night's beer-goggle conquest, only to see a cheap wig and smell the stale whiskey breath, and realize I had been tricked.Why in the world did the filmmakers reveal their deception? It had been such a wonderful reverie. The movie was utterly ruined for me after I had already seen it. class="pages"> previous Page 1 of 2 next   ]]>
    (Review Source)

VJ Morton1
Right Wing Film Geek

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)
  • Skandies season
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    Skandies season

    We’re now in film-geek awards season. Paul has started going through the awards categories in the Muriels (next year, I fearlessly predict a knockdown drag-out in the 50th anniversary category — NORTH BY NORTHWEST vs. SOME LIKE IT HOT). And in the Skandies poll in which I vote, and which I went to considerable time and expense to see a single eligible film right at deadline, Mike already has reached #12 in the daily countdown.

    In deference to Mike’s oft-expressed wishes, I will not reveal my ballot until after the end of the countdown, when it becomes public anyway.

    But this is what got left on the cutting-room floor — i.e., the performances, scenes, etc. that I short-listed as I put the ballot together and went over my “film seen” list, but got shucked away as I whittled the list in each category down to 10. So these are all thing I *did not* vote for, but was of a mind to at one point. The asterisks indicate the entry was the last one to get eliminated — the #11, as it were.

    Jeff Goldblum, ADAM RESURRECTED — Can’t quite overcome the basic wtf quality of the movie, but does a damn good job trying.
    Jason Statham, THE BANK JOB — Has the charisma and physical presence needed to be a major action star that you can bear to see act (cf, the Rock).
    ** Steve Carell, GET SMART — Actually gave us a Maxwell Smart who was both funny and not a Don Adams clone.
    Jean-Claude Van Damme, JCVD — Nobody else could play this role half as well, and not simply “by definition.”
    Muthana Mohmed, OPERATION FILMMAKER — Forget that this is a documentary; he is playing a role, a self-conscious “selling of himself (or a narrative of his travails)” at every moment.
    Sam Rockwell, SNOW ANGELS — James Reston in F/N was a strident one-note rant compared to this … ahem … strugglingly-religious struggling-drunk.
    Will Poulter, SON OF RAMBOW — The Bad Boy has all the fun in goody-good-good movies, and gives it all back to us.
    Francois Cluzet, TELL NO ONE — Cluzet would have been an ideal Hitchcock leading man — closest to Jon Fitch in FRENZY.
    Mark Ruffalo, WHAT DOESN’T KILL YOU — Why did the studio dump this perfectly accessible crime movie, which Ruffalo makes deeper and more-original than it looks (which admittedly isn’t per-se saying much)?

    LEAD FEMALE (weakest category)
    Katherine Heigl, 27 DRESSES — I don’t think I’m thinking with the wrong organ when I say that I couldn’t take my eyes off her.
    Meryl Streep, DOUBT — If you’d toned it down a bit, Meryl, I’d have joined everybody else’s hosannahs.
    ** Kierston Wareing, IT’S A FREE WORLD — Where does Loach find all these terrifically natural actors, and why does he surround them with Laverty’s horrifically contrived scripts?
    Kate Beckinsale, SNOW ANGELS — Stuck in my memory, though I honestly can’t remember why beyond being surprised she could pull off middle-aged unhappiness at all.

    Daniel Mays, THE BANK JOB — Scene-stealing character actors like Mays are what pushes the competent heist-action movie into at least “pretty good.”
    Peter Mullan, BOY A — Not an inauthentic cell in his body, though somewhat limited by the schematic role the script gave him.
    Aaron Eckhart, THE DARK KNIGHT — Ho hum … Eckhart awesome again. Though I thought he was better (careful wording) early on, where he could use his endless supply of oleaginous charm.
    ** Brendan Gleeson, IN BRUGES — The very opposite of Eckhart in every way, but also provided exactly what *his* movie needed — gravitas.
    Raymond Mearns, IT’S A FREE WORLD — Just a couple of scenes, but an unforgettable Glaswegian “character.”
    David Straithairn, MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS — The most “tang” in any character in Wong’s overripe hymn to fruity melon-collie (sorry …)
    James Franco, (speaking of which) PINEAPPLE EXPRESS — I really believe that this dealer would be a man’s best friend.
    Quentin Tarantino, SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO — A horrifically bad actor, but Miike knows how to harness a bad-actor — use him as a kind of self-parodying presence for comedy.
    Tom Cruise, TROPIC THUNDER — A horrifically bad actor, but Stiller knows how to harness a bad-actor — use him as a kind of self-parodying presence for comedy.
    Tom Wilkinson, VALKYRIE — More Wilkinson’s persona and presence than the role, really, but this movie needed some of both.
    Richard Dreyfuss, W. — Easily the “best” performance in the film, but Stone is so all-over-the-map with his actors that I decided that I can’t even really be sure that this is a “good” performance in the film’s context.

    Emma Thompson, BRIDESHEAD REVISITED — Liked this performance less after seeing Claire Bloom in the 11-hour TV series, but Emma simply doesn’t know how to not make you watch her.
    Frances McDormand, BURN AFTER READING — Of course she’s overacting, Mike. In this movie, that’s a problem?
    Tilda Swinton, BURN AFTER READING — But *here* was someone I was astonished to see could comically overact as effectively as McDormand.
    Catinca Untaru, THE FALL — Movie’s very hazy in the memory (I saw it when the GOP controlled Congress), but her naivete and willfulness have stuck with me.
    Anne Hathaway, GET SMART — I don’t suppose it’ll count as giving away my ballot if I say that the “I’ve got her taken care of elsewhere”-factor hurt Hathaway’s chances here.
    ** Karina Fernandez, HAPPY GO-LUCKY — I don’t suppose it’ll count as giving away my ballot if I say that the “I’ve got that movie taken care of elsewhere”-factor hurt Fernandez’s chances.
    Joan Cusack, KIT KITTREDGE — I don’t know if there’s right now an actress who’s better at playing “dotty.”
    Debra Winger, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED — Wished she had more scenes, though I understand why dramatically-speaking, her character couldn’t be around too much.
    Samantha Morton, SYNECHDOCHE, NEW YORK — The only thing I can really say is that I remembered her at all in this meta-mess that pretty much ends my interest in Kaufman.
    Marie-Josee Croze, TELL NO ONE — Can’t say why I liked her without giving away too much, so I’ll just say that she has one of the best acting-faces this side of Liv Ullman (I’ve never seen her and not at least short-listed her).
    Penelope Cruz, VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA — Never quite shook the notion that she’s overdoing the “Latin firecracker” bit, but she was such an entertaining firecracker that it hardly matters.
    Rebecca Miller, VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA — Never quite shook the notion that she’s overdoing the “repressed stick-in-the-mud” bit, but she was such an effective stick that it hardly matters.
    Ko Hyeon-geong, WOMAN ON THE BEACH — Hard to believe that “the Jennifer Aniston of South Korea” (Theo’s phrase) could be the subtlest actor in the film.

    In case it isn't obvious, this is Canet directing (fellow runnerup) Marie-Josee Croze on the set ... I couldn't find a pic of him writing with partner Philippe Lefebvre.

    J. Michael Straczynski, CHANGELING — Actually made a wtf real-life story halfway, not exactly credible, but entertainingly in-credible. Pity about the direction though.
    Emmanuel Bourdieu and Arnaud Desplechin, A CHRISTMAS TALE — Has that let’s-take-everything-in ambition, but the resultant meandering quality somehow avoids coming across as wheel-spinning.
    Mike Leigh, HAPPY GO-LUCKY — Ho hum … loaves, fishes … you know the drill from the world’s greatest writer-who-didn’t-make-a-film-called-MEMENTO. But mikebud … kill the insane dude … seriously.
    Peter Morgan, THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL — Actually made a wtf real-life story halfway, not exactly credible, but entertainingly in-credible. Pity about the direction though. And your damn F/N script from later in the year.
    Eric Rohmer, ROMANCE OF ASTREA AND CELADON — Has an innocence and purity that subsequent reviews made me see, but I still don’t fundamentally get why the film was made at all.
    ** Philippe Lefebvre and Guillaume Canet, TELL NO ONE — Such a strong story that I really regretted shucking away every short-listing I gave the film and wound up giving it no points at all.
    Hong Sang-soo, WOMAN ON THE BEACH — So wildly ambitious in its antecedents (8 1/2 and VERTIGO — a director trying to mould a woman into the perfect leading lady for life) yet still fits within the same Hong patterns

    DIRECTOR (strongest category, I think)
    Christopher Nolan, THE DARK KNIGHT — I’ve a feeling I’ll regret this omission more than any other, perhaps not seeing Nolan’s direction because blinded by his being simply the best scriptwriter in the world (um … spoiler I guess).
    Jacques Rivette, THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS — Except maybe for this one, only the second Rivette to really send me. He should make more movies about nuns in my opinion.
    ** Fatih Akin, THE EDGE OF HEAVEN — The script so completely falls apart in Act 3 that it’s a tribute to Akin’s direction that the film still sometimes works (and the memory of the first two acts isn’t tainted too much).
    Tarsem, THE FALL — Yeah, yeah, make fun of me all you want, you hipsterdudes cracking about “perfume commercials.” Giganticism never gets held against Fritz Lang.
    Michael Haneke, FUNNY GAMES — Yep. Haneke doing what he does best in a language he doesn’t speak well, and it’s still not enough for the Top 10. The film’s repetitiveness, in the context of the guy’s career, also hurt its chances.
    Patricia Rozema, KIT KITTREDGE — The biggest surprise of the year for me and the credit goes to Rozema’s restraint and her control of the tricky and unfashionable tone this story needed. Wished I could have found a slot for her.
    Wong Kar-wai, MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS — Yep. Wong doing what he does best in a language he doesn’t speak well, and it’s still not enough for the Top 10. The film’s repetitiveness, in the context of the guy’s career, also hurt its chances.
    Gus Van Sant, PARANOID PARK — Why did I think I would give points to a film I so morally detested? Maybe that question is its own answer.
    Stuart Gordon, STUCK — OK … maybe THIS was the year’s biggest surprise (though word of mouth at TIFF 07 was strong), and like Rozema’s film also a great job of maintaining a tricky tone — here between semi-gore and semi-comedy.

    Interview with Henry Waxman, BIGGER STRONGER FASTER — The guy is such a self-righteous smarm that I was cheering when Bell made him look a fool.
    ** Inside the car, BURN AFTER READING — (vjm goes off to cry somewhere at cutting this howlingly-funny scene that sold me on this film fergood)
    Che at the UN, CHE — Just about the only spark in the film, and also the only moments that aren’t back-of-the-throat treatment, by secular-liberal lights.
    Family history, A CHRISTMAS TALE — As someone who wasn’t a great fan of Desplechin, this early scene’s mixture of whimsy and economical exposition won me over right away.
    The roach game, CJ7 — Wished the film hadn’t gotten all serious, as this scene rivaks LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL in the terms of a “make lemonade” game being used as a comic denial-of-misery.
    First office confrontation, DOUBT — If Steve McQueen had staged this conversation, in a single static take — or maybe two or three, this could have been the scene of the year, in a walk.
    At the convent, THE DUCHESS OF LANGEAIS — The sudden cutting at the end is as shocking and violent as any onscreen-stabbing.
    The Pakistani couple, FROZEN RIVER — Another scene I really regretted having to lose, it’s really the movie’s moral trajectory in miniaturem suspenseful as all hell, and on two different grounds. But Melissa Leo allowed me to make it up.
    Hancock vs. France, HANCOCK — C’mon … you know why I love this scene.
    Flamenco!, HAPPY GO-LUCKY — Whenever I think Leigh should can his actorly one-scene bits like the homeless guy, along comes a masterful scene like this one to remind me how handsomely his gambles often pay off.
    “Bapu Can’t Dance,” JAANE TU YA JAANE NA — Yo, Academy … *here* is AR Rahman at his best (OK … maybe not *very* best, but *way* better).
    Opening scene, JCVD — I agree with Mike … wtf were y’all thinking (see the scene there). Even if JCVD’s 4th-wall scene isn’t cringeworthy, this one is WAY more fun.
    Stuck in windshield, PINEAPPLE EXPRESS — This was a good year for people getting stuck in windshields in my opinion.
    Encounter group, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED — (vjm just goes off to cry again … I so hate the confessional mode that being emotionally involved with a group like this blew me away … maybe my self-conscious aversion to bloc voting hurt it)
    The Stepford breakfast, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD — I don’t care what y’all say … Kate’s mannered Sirkian recitation and gestures *made* this scene.
    Reaching for the cell phone, STUCK — So much drama and suspense turns on (quite literally) the most minute of gestures and the smallest of spaces.
    QT and cooking, SUKIYAKI WESTERN DJANGO — If you’re unsympatico with the film’s whole concept — deliberately mangled recapitulation of Western tropes as pomo-gesture humor … I couldn’t even begin to make the case for this scene.
    Retardation explained, TROPIC THUNDER — (repeat vjm crying drill from above … probably the year’s most memorably quotable scene. And it’s film criticism!! And spot on, too!!!)
    Restaurant confrontation, WOMAN ON THE BEACH — In some ways an even more uncomfortable scene than the confrontation in DOUBT above, because the characters are so self-consciously (making a show of being) “explosive.”

    Report this ad
    Report this ad

    Like this:

    Like Loading...

    February 10, 2009 - Posted by | Skandies

    1 Comment »

    1. I wouldn’t be so sure it’s only a two-horse race for next year’s 50th Anniversary Muriel- I’m guessing we’ve got a good Nouvelle Vague contingent among our ranks, which would make THE 400 BLOWS and BREATHLESS major players in the game. Plus there’s also PICKPOCKET, RIO BRAVO, HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR… you get the idea. Way more going on than in ’58. And the other Anniversary awards- ’84 and ’99- should be interesting too.

      Comment by Paul C. | February 23, 2009 | Reply

    Leave a Reply Cancel reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    « Previous | Next »

    (Review Source)

Kyle Smith3
National Review

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Today at the Toronto Film Festival
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    I just saw Kathryn Bigelow’s movie “The Hurt Locker,” an intense and visceral look at bomb-disposal experts in the army in Iraq, with Jeremy Renner in the lead role. (I’m not sure I’ve seen a film before in which the two most famous actors were instantly killed off.) “The Hurt Locker” makes such a strong statement for war as “drug” or “adrenaline rush,” as it is referred to, that it’s practically an army recruitment film. Despite the horrific violence associated with defusing IEDs in Iraq, perhaps the most revolting shot in the movie is….a row of cereal boxes in an ordinary grocery store. The film’s message is that, insane as it is, war has its attractions. I don’t think Renner is quite charismatic enough in the lead, though, and in the final two reels of this (130-minute) film, things begin to seem repetitive. It was still looking for a distributor last time I checked, but supposedly a bidding war was underway. It’ll probably have to wait until next year for a theatrical release because it’s not an Oscar-type movie but rather an in-your-face actioner from the director of “Point Break” and “Strange Days.” It may be the most macho Iraq film yet. Certainly it’s right up there with “The Kingdom.” Later I saw Kevin Smith’s “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” and was impressed. I’m not a fan of Smith’s–I hated “Chasing Amy” and skipped some of his other work (“Mallrats,” that Ben Affleck movie, whatever)–but this is the funniest Kevin Smith movie I’ve seen since “Clerks” and might be his best ever. It’s an archly profane comedy (and a parody of the standard rom-com) in which Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) are longtime roommates (they’ve known each other since first grade) who are so desperate to pay their bills (the electricity and water have been shut off) that they decide to star in a porno together. (Rogen, gently taking her hand: “Will you have sex with me on camera for money?” Banks: “I will!”) The when-will-these-two-find-they’re-perfect-for-each-other outlines of the plot are formulaic, but the story beats actually work together as neatly as in a Hollywood film. It’s as is Smith has seen some Judd Apatow movies and decided: Ah. That’s how it’s done. The usual tiresome two-page rants about religion and pop culture are gone, the actors are top-notch and the naughty language and sight gags (there is a heaping helping of excremental comedy, and the big payoff comes with the heroine sitting on the toilet) are at the service of character and story rather than the reverse. This is an excellent raunchy comedy…a raun-com? “When Harry Did Sally”? I expect it will out-earn any previous film of Smith’s. It’s consistently funny with a dash of sweetness, and it makes excellent use of Craig Robinson (“The Office,” “Knocked Up,” “Pineapple Express”), who really ought to be starring in comedies by now.]]>
    (Review Source)
  • "The Dark Knight" Headed for $500 Million?
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The massive success of “The Dark Knight,” which as of today becomes the biggest earner of the year at the box office, raises the question of whether it can become the second film to top $500 million at the domestic box office. I think it can, though it’s highly unlikely it will approach the $600 million “Titanic” took in. Studios are usually crazed to be the first big movie of the summer, but “The Dark Knight” is going to show the advantages of the last major blockbuster of the summer. Though movies like “The Mummy 3,” “Tropic Thunder” and “Pineapple Express” will attract sizeable audiences, having opened on July 18, “The Dark Knight” is not going to have to face anything on the scale of “Shrek the Third” or “Pirates 3,” as “Spider-Man 3” did last year. As is almost always the case, early September is also a write-off, movie-wise, meaning “The Dark Knight” could easily linger in the top ten well past Labor Day. ]]>
    (Review Source)
  • Comic-Con: Sold Out
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Hard to believe, but true: this year’s Comic-Con, which opens July 24, has sold all its four day passes and all its Saturday and Sunday passes. An article in Variety today gives it props, comparing it to Sundance and ShoWest and Cannes and…huh? Sundance? I’ve never been to Sundance but every year a dozen or so of its very best movies slowly wend their way back east and they’re about glum teens haunted by abortion or glum rural folk haunted by incest or glum war vets haunted by all the bad war movies they’ve had to sit through since they came home. Nobody watches Sundance product, except for one film per year like “The Full Monty” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” whereas Comic-Con shows movies people actually want to see. The convention, in San Diego, has pretty much abandoned all pretense that its movies have to be linked to comics; this year features, for instance, “Pineapple Express.” Comic-Con is the Sundance of blockbusters, or maybe Sundance is Comic-Con for the clinically depressed. Which is all a way of saying I wish my editors would send me to Comic-Con. (They won’t.)]]>
    (Review Source)

Steve Sailer1
Taki Mag

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • 127 Hours of Hollywood Hokum
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    The exuberant 127 Hours, Director Danny Boyle’s first movie since winning the Best Picture Oscar for Slumdog Millionaire, is surprisingly comparable to The Social Network. While 127 Hours is shorter, slighter, and more upbeat, both films are deftly made reconstructions of famous 2003 events within young elite subcultures: Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg founding Facebook and alpinist Aron Ralston walking away from a solo canyoneering accident by amputating his own arm. Both movies overcome their inherently static situations through showbiz razzmatazz. Aaron Sorkin enlivens a story of typing and giving depositions with snappy dialogue. Boyle employs flashbacks, hallucinations, alternative endings, and his zap-pow digital cinematography to juice up the tale of a man, his hand wedged to a canyon wall by a fallen boulder, contemplating his options. Namely, these options are: somehow survive in a crack in the Utah desert on a liter of water until somebody stumbles upon him; rig a pulley to lift the 800-pound rock; chip the boulder away; perform surgery on himself with a dull knife; or die. In contrast to the frenetic Slumdog, Boyle offers viewers time to think along with his hero by spreading out Ralston’s discoveries of his options. In truth, Ralston, a mechanical engineer from Carnegie Mellon who’d quit Intel to concentrate on climbing, identified all his possibilities within an hour after his fall. Getting audiences to like the real Ralston’s combination of cold-blooded rationality and recklessness, however, is a more complicated challenge than Boyle chooses to accept.“Both The Social Network and 127 Hours leave you wondering whether the middle-aged filmmakers, despite their undeniable expertise, truly understand their young subjects.” (In case you are worrying, no, the hero doesn’t spend all 127 hours sawing off his arm. While that took Ralston an hour, Boyle compresses the auto-surgery down to a couple of minutes, with his camera mostly on James Franco’s expressive face.) Both The Social Network and 127 Hours leave you wondering whether the middle-aged filmmakers, despite their undeniable expertise, truly understand their young subjects. For example, both films’ inspirations are more conventionally handsome than the movie stars who portray them. Franco (the kind-hearted dope dealer in Pineapple Express) looks weedy compared to the rugged-jawed Ralston. Boyle’s harsh digital colors and need to shoot with wide-angle lenses in the soundstage mockup of the four-foot-wide canyon slot leaves poor Franco looking pop-eyed and sallow. These casting choices enable the filmmakers to manipulate audience reactions. The Social Network portrays Zuckerberg as a lonely, angry nerd, even though he strikes programmers and venture capitalists as a natural leader of men. Last week, for example, Google granted all its employees pay raises to keep them from defecting to Team Zuckerberg. Next Page ]]>
    (Review Source)

Soiled Sinema1
Soiled Reviews

(Reviewers' Site/Bio)



  • A Day with the Boys
    (”Pineapple Express” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Admittedly, Clu Gulager has never been one of my favorite actors, but he sure can play an agitating asshole quite convincingly as dep...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
Misandry Average rating:  
Affirmative action Average rating:  
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
Anti-God Average rating:  

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page: