Movie 170: Adventureland

Adventureland (2009) by Greg Mottola
starring Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart and Ryan Reynolds



In a nutshell: A really great and tender movie that slipped under most radars last year due to some faulty marketing.

Quick synopsis: A young man returns home after graduating from college, only to find that his summer will not be going as planned and that he has to find a job.

Content: Superbad was a big hit for Greg Mottola, and while there are a few similar themes, Adventureland isn't even really a comedy at heart. Yet the studio powers that be decided to pretend that it was yet another teen comedy and covered up the fact that Adventureland is something significantly better. It's nearest kin that I can think of it Dazed & Confused and it comes complete with that film's sense of nostalgia. Except rather than the '70's, Adventureland focuses on 1987.

It's easy to look at Jesse Eisenberg in the lead role and think that Michael Cera must have been unavailable. But Eisenberg is less innocent and helpless and more complex than any of Cera's roles. I think that Adventureland is significantly better with Eisenberg that it would have been with Cera. I recently saw Eisenberg on Conan O'Brien promoting Zombieland, and he is a genuinely interesting and funny guy in a very self-depricating way. Not a trace of ego even as his star rises. I like him a lot despite his neuroses that remind me a little too much of Woody Allen. Hopefully he won't end up as typecast as Cera, but I'm not sure he will be able to play anything else.

Kristen Stewart of Twilight fame is surprisingly good as the love interest and Ryan Reynolds (Mr. Van Wilder himself) avoids his typical smugness that has plagued him in other movies. I even enjoyed a much more subdued than usual Bill Hader and his always-funny counterpart Kristen Wiig (both from SNL). The only other person I recognized was Martin Starr from the short-lived Judd Apatow television show, Freaks and Geeks. It's always good to see him turn up. And perhaps the best casting move made in Adventureland was NOT squeezing in Jonah Hill who seems to be involved in every single Apatow-family film in one form or another, often trying too hard to be funny.

So word has it that Adventureland was a very personal story for Greg Mottola who probably went through something vaguely resembling the events of Adventureland between college and his movie career. Everything is handled with a care that I only wished every movie was given. The characters are very well developed and it is easy to get sucked into their drama. But Adventureland is not melodramatic either. It finds just the right balance of nostalgia (taking place in a very dated theme park), comedy, romance and serious late-teen early-20's issues and should be held in the same regard as Dazed and Confused and Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

It's about a kid's plans to move to NYC for grad school getting screwed up when his parents inform him that they can no longer chip in the money they had hoped to. So he takes a job at the local amusement park and quickly becomes immersed in the social life there, regressing a little personally. He is used to stimulating intellectual situations at college and suddenly finds himself wiping up puke. He also finds that he is suddenly quite the ladies man without much effort; something he was clearly not used to. From there he makes and loses friends, gets into trouble and tries to figure out what to do with himself. And it all seems realistic. It is not played up for the sake of theater. He doesn't have a heightened Cameron-level breakdown (see: Ferris Bueller). It's all believable and I related VERY well. Not sure if women will be able to relate as much, But I recognized a lot of situations from my own life and knew exactly what the character was thinking.

There are only two main things I can think of for my wishlist: (1) more of a conclusion for Martin Starr's character, (2) the ending didn't need to be spelled out quite as much. The ending is the only part when you know you are watching a movie because of cliches. Oh well. It doesn't ruin anything, it was just unnecessary.

So, if you like Dazed and Confused (and honestly...who doesn't?) please give Adventureland a try. It underperformed at the box office, and if we want Greg Mottola to get another shot at making a movie he wants to make, then it's gonna take some effort to make Adventureland into a DVD success. Don't be fooled by the trailers that would have you believe it is bascially another Superbad. I'm not saying Superbad was bad (it certainly wasn't) but Adventureland is something differnt. It takes many of the most interesting themes in Superbad and explores them in a more serious, yet still entertaining manner. This guy clearly has a nice touch and I look forward to whatever he is doing next.

One final note: as you would expect from a movie based largely on nostalgia, there is a great soundtrack highlighted by greats like The Replacements' Unsatisfied. Here's a preview




Rolling rankings:
1. Inglourious Basterds (#168)
2. Do The Right Thing (#162)
3. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
4. Adventureland (#170)
5. Duplicity (#167)
6. Battle Royale (#165)
7. Into the Wild (#166)
8. Interview With The Vampire (#163)
9. I Love You, Man (#164)
10. The Happening (#161)

Movie 169: Where The Wild Things Are

Where The Wild Things Are (2009) by Spike Jonze
starring Max Records



In a nutshell: Not really a kids movie! Not sure I liked the emotions it brought out in me, but the fact that it created emotions says something

Quick synopsis: Max travels a mysterious island full of monsters to escape from his problems

Content: The more I think about Where the Wild Things Are, the more I like it. I am surprised at the mixed reviews. First of all, you can't fault any of the visuals. Spike Jonze creates something completely unique. Whatever they did to bring the monsters to life was perfect. Possibly the best visual interpretation of classic illustrations EVER put on the screen.

But the worthiness of the extrapolated story is much less clear. The book couldn't have been more than 1 full page worth of text, so it required a lot of interpretation. And while I don't necessarily think that Jonze's interpretation of the story is the same as the author's, I think it is a very valid interpretation.

The bulk of the extrapolation occurs when Max leaves his everyday life to sail to the island of the Wild Things. When he meets them is where opinions diverge. The story becomes extremely disjointed, jumping from one mood to another with odd dialog that makes little logical sense. Characters have mostly unexplained motivations and emphasize strange things in their conversations - like holes in trees. But I am convinced that it was written that way the monsters are figment's of a young boy's imagination, and he is the one putting words into their mouths. Therefore the fact that it all seems oddly juvenile and simplistic is exactly what Jonze was going for. They things that hold their interest change in an instant. This is how little kids think when they are playing. All they talk about is forts, and holes in trees, and dirt fights and sleeping in piles and that is what the Wild Things talk about. If this is not straight from the mind of a 9 year-old then I don't know what is. Jonze even tipped off what he was doing early in the film when Max delivers another meandering narrative to his mother when she asks for a story.

Also because the interactions between the monsters are being controlled by Max's imagination, they are not your typical magical creatures. There is no all-knowing sage like Aslan from Narnia because Max doesn't have the knowledge that this type of character would dispense. They are confused because Max is confused by his suddenly complicated life. The Wild Things ARE Max. Most representing different aspects of his personality. And that brings me to the most interesting conclusion I drew from the film. It's not really a kid's movie about the wonders of imagination and a mystical journey...it's about the end of Max's innocence. Max is going through some tough times in real life, so when he goes and visits his imaginary friends, things are not so simple anymore, even with them. They fight with each other and break things and are jealous. These are all reflections of the complications that Max has run into recently. So he finds that he can't use them as his escape anymore because he brings his confusion with him. It's really very sad, because Max's innocence is probably ending a little earlier than it should. And at the end Max comes to the conclusion that he needs to deal with his problems in reality, not in imagination, and leaves his imaginary world possibly for good. Very sad!

Unlike other "imaginary journey" movies like Time Bandits, Labyrinth, Alice in Wonderland, etc., Where The Wild Things Are keeps it's journey very much rooted in the reality of the character. The world is very much limited by what Max himself knows. Any wisdom imparted by the Wild Things is Max himself figuring things out through them. Also, Max is imagining everything while he is hiding in the woods. That is why all the things he does with the Wild Things involve digging holes, playing with sticks, throwing dirt, talking to owls (i.e. things he can do in the woods). Notice that everything built on the island is made of sticks! I really liked that touch and it further supports my interpretation.

I have purposely avoided other reviews and interpretation of this movie before writing this. I can't wait to hear if others draw the same conclusions I have, although the large number of disappointed reviews seem to indicate otherwise. Perhaps I am wrong in giving credit to Jonze for the way events unfold on the island (which seems to have been the most problematic sections for critics), but I really don't think so. I do, however, think that Where The Wild Things will become a classic worthy of study in years to come. There is a lot to analyze and it's stature will develop as the next few years pass.

Rolling rankings:
1. Inglourious Basterds (#168)
2. Do The Right Thing (#162)
3. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
4. Duplicity (#167)
5. Battle Royale (#165)
6. Into the Wild (#166)
7. Doubt (#160)
8. Interview With The Vampire (#163)
9. I Love You, Man (#164)
10. The Happening (#161)

Movie 168: Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds (2009) by Quentin Tarantino
starring Brad Pitt, Christopher Waltz and Melanie Laurent



In a nutshell: Trademark QT. Brilliant

Quick synopsis: American, French and British operatives try to kill as many Nazis as possible during WWII. They end up with a chance to take down some very senior officers.

Content: When I first heard about the subject of QT's latest, I was a little disappointed. I wasn't really into war movies and preferred that he made something crime-oriented or something original like Kill Bill, especially since he only makes a movie every three years or so. But my worries turned out to be baseless because Inglourious Basterds is fantastic.

Quentin knows how to make a movie. He knows how to carry his viewer off into his world and totally immerse them. Once again, his dialogue is excellent. It doesn't get much better than the 20 minute opening scene which is mostly one conversation so gripping that it never feels slow. Honestly, how many other directors could have pulled that off.

Casting is also great. Some people didn't like Pitt because he is too over the top. But I say if you want to see Pitt trying too hard, watch Burn After Reading, not Inglourious Basterds because QT keeps him under control and uses him beautifully. Diane Kruger is good, and rising star Michael Fassbender too. I even liked Eli Roth AND Mike Myers who seemed to bug other people. I don't care if their acting isn't naturalistic...QT knew what he was doing. The only person I did not like was B.J. Novak of The Office. He did not fit in and was trying too hard to be deadpan at times. Oh well, you can't win 'em all. But I haven't mentioned the best performance of them all yet. Christopher Waltz knocks it completely out of the park as Hans Landa, the "Jew Hunter". He is so evil yet carries out his terrible work with a sly grin on his face. He deserves an Oscar for this role.

As usual the music is perfect and the homages run deep. I'm sure I missed more than half of them.

The title refers to a band of American soldiers running around killing Nazis, but it turns out that they really aren't the main characters. They are, instead, a sort of force running rampant around the main characters who end up stepping into the forefront at the end. They aren't well developed, but that's ok because they are more of a vengeful spirit than actual people.

I can't recommend Inglourious Basterds enough. There is some gore, but my friend and I found ourselves giggling at it. Like most QT movies, he just keeps giving the audience exactly what they want. even if they don't realize it's what they wanted until later. For example, there was bit of a twist in the ending that I had wished for, but then ruled out because it shouldn't be possible. But this is QT's world, not real life, and he gives us the impossible anyway. It is extremely satisfying. I can't wait to watch again.

Rolling rankings:
1. Inglourious Basterds (#168)
2. Do The Right Thing (#162)
3. Duplicity (#167)
4. Battle Royale (#165)
5. Into the Wild (#166)
6. Doubt (#160)
7. Interview With The Vampire (#163)
8. I Love You, Man (#164)
9. The Happening (#161)
10. Fanboys (#159)

New Season

In the wake of the Sox' collapse, I've caught up on the new TV season. Here's what I've been watching.



The Office - season 6

Around the middle of the 4th season, I started to give up on The Office. It wasn't as good as it used to be because the characters (specifically Michael and Dwight) had grown a little too far over-the-top and the storylines were getting stupid. Around this time, NBC was also stretching the show to fill an hour time slot. It couldn't have been more clear that forcing the writers to fill an hour every week was a horrible idea. But once the show returned to 30 minutes and Dwight slipped a little more into the background it got better again. Dwight is a great character, but he is so ridiculous that he needs to be used in moderation. The writers figured this out just in time.

The other complaint that I had in recent years was that I really didn't care about the attempts at a dramatic storyline (Jim and Pam, I'm looking at you). It seemed like the show's lame attempt to appeal to the Grey's Anatomy crowd. But a few weeks ago, the show reached something it has been building towards for a long time: the big wedding. The episode was fantastic. It proved that the show could easily fill 60 minutes (if it had a good reason) and also proved to me that I actually do care a little bit about those two characters. In fact, during the big finish, I realized that I had come to care about all the characters and it was great that they finally all came together for something without any qualifications. A+ for the episode.

Not sure where they go from here since the wedding was the big moment we had been building towards practically since day 1. Will they find a new direction? Will they maintain their recent momentum? I really hope so because The Office has regained its status as one of my favorite shows.



Rounding out NBC Thursday night (the best night of TV on any network these days) are 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation and Community. I still haven't watched 30 Rock, so I can't comment there, but I have been watching the other two.

Parks and Recreation is frustrating. It's very much in the style of The Office, but not as good. The premise seems way too thrown together for me. Amy Poehler's character is just like Michael Scott: usually very funny but some jokes seem too forced. Tom Haverford is the best character. Ron Swanson is also good, but , as good as she was on The Office, Rashida Jones doesn't really do anything for me and the fact that her character is still involved in the running storyline doesn't make any sense. She isn't connected to anyone that works in Town Hall other than the fact that she is supposed to be Amy Poehler's good friend. Well, they supposedly met in the first episode and it's pretty much the least convincing television friendship I can remember. And Rashida's ex, Andy, has even LESS reason to still be featured. They just keep him around so they can make jokes about him living in the pit. The whole show seems too forced to me and I don't think I will watch beyond this season if the show even makes it that long. I can't imagine many people are watching.

Community, on the other hand, is great. The stories and morals are overly simplistic and somewhat juvenile, but the episodes are packed densely with jokes and funny dialogue. I often have to rewind to make sure I catch everything. The characters are unique and have come together in an interesting and original setting (community college). And I am glad to have Chevy Chase back in my life. It has been soooo long since he has been a factor.

Support Community! I have a hard time comparing it to anything else. It's not quite documentary style like The Office...but there's no laugh track. Scrubs maybe? Give it a try, and pay attention or you will miss half the jokes. My only fear is that it is too smart for its own good. It doesn't spell out its comedy for the masses...it's somewhat subtle and trusts its audience. A similar recipe spelled a premature end for Arrested Development, so I will enjoy Community while it lasts.



Next show: The World Series of Poker. I love watching this way more than I should. I find it to be kind of the ultimate reality show. Thousands of amateur strangers competing against some of the world's best poker players for millions of dollars and a coveted bracelet in a game where all contestants start on equal ground. This is the beauty of poker: even though there are recognized masters of the game, any amateur can beat any pro on any given day. And when it comes to reality, the WSOP is MUCH more of a reality show than any of that other brand of "reality show" which is so clearly not reality (Osbournes, Girls Next Door, Hogan Knows Best, Growing Up Gotti, Kardashians, The Hills, those Bam Margera shows). I seriously hate those shows. And if you think that the "day-to-day" life depicted is what would be happening if the cameras were off, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

But back to poker... It's not that I love watching poker. In fact any poker on TV other than the WSOP bores me. But the WSOP main event is such a unique competition that I love every minute of it. I love rooting for the pros to reclaim their title from the amateur idiots that have been winning. I love Norman Chad's hilarious commentary. I love watching grown men throw hissy fits because they catch a bad break. I love getting to know new players as they reveal more about themselves the longer they survive.

We are down to 16 or so players remaining and you better believe I'm pulling for arguably "the best player in the world", Phil Ivey.

Quick comments about the rest:

South Park - Still good in its 13th season. Uneven though. Some episodes miss completely while others are brilliant.

Numb3rs/CSI - I vow to give up these two shows every year, yet I can never bring myself to erase them from the DVR. Call them my guilty pleasures if you like. CSI's cast has undergone a major makeover with William Petersen gone, Gary Dourdan gone, Jorja Fox gone and then returned, and Riley Adams (worst character ever) gone (good riddance). Numb3rs is getting by on its beloved characters and what must be a cult following. The math is a complete joke and I'm not sure whether or not they are trying to be funny sometimes, but I keep watching if only for the next Lou Diamond Phillips appearance.

FlashForward - The show ABC has been selling to LOST fans as a replacement when LOST ends its amazing run next spring. It's about what happens when the entire world collapses at once for about two minutes and sees where they will be at the exact same moment a few months (or years...I forget) in the future. It's just ok. It's very high concept has me intrigued (much like LOST), but it seems to take itself a little too seriously and have more potential story holes which they will hopefully avoid. I will give this one a little longer, but the inferior characters are the main difference between FlashForward and LOST. I attribute this to some bad casting. John Cho should never play a character as serious as this. After all, he was Harold. And why do they cast a British actress with a horrible American accent in one of the lead roles? Could they really not find a single American actress that fit the part? Odd.

The Tonight Show - I will always think that Conan is better than Jay, but it's getting awfully repetitive. The repetition worked better with Late Night's more low brow style. I like that they brought many good skits with them (In the year 3000, quarters) but also some crappy ones (Noches de Pasion, the bassist' thoughts about how white Conan is). Most of the new ones suck (studio tours, tabloid moment, twitter tracker), while some of the best were left behind (live via satellite, actual items, if they mated). Go figure. I still watch it, but I fastforward through a lot of it, mostly just looking for good guests.

Fringe - Stopped watching because DVR can only record 2 shows at a time. Really not missing it at all.

Entourage - Same as it always is. Some people attack it for being lazy, but I say it is consistent. They knew what they are and don't venture too far from it. Give them some credit.

1901

Song of the day

You might recognize this sweet song from a Cadillac ad.

Phoenix - 1901