By Kim Voynar Voynar@moviecitynews.com

Short Take: Adventureland (views)

Adventureland, the newest feature by Greg Mottola (Superbad), is a fun trip back to the ’80s, when glamour-rock, mall hair and blue eyeshadow were cool. James (Jesse Eisenberg), newly graduated from college, is planning his long-promised post-graduation backpacking trip across Europe with his college (his roommate, when his parents drop the bomb that dad’s been demoted and there’s no longer money for trips to Europe or tuition at Columbia.
Forced to find a summer job but lacking any actual job skills, the best job he can find is at Adventureland, the local amusement park, where he finds himself relegated to “Games,” the lower tier of Adventureland employee-dom. At Adventureland, James meets Em (Kristen Stewart), to whom he’s immediately attracted, and makes a host of new friends, including the lovely but vacuous Lisa P., who’s attracted to him.
The film plays well overall, but pacing is a bit uneven, going from hills of laughter to valleys where it drags along a bit, and there’s little conflict to drive the plot; the story is basically just this guy and his friends, working in an amusement park, and what happens with his relationship with Em, who’s also involved in a relationship with the married maintenance worker. I’d have liked to have seen the script delve a little deeper into some of the characters and their motivations; the one character we learn a fair amount about is Em, who’s dealing with the fairly recent death of her mother and her father’s remarriage in addition to the complication of an affair with a married man.
Nonetheless, the film is largely buoyed by the charm and natural on-screen presence of Eisenberg, and there’s some funny stuff involving the amusement park owners, Bobby and Paulette (Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig). This isn’t a raucous comedy, it’s more of a dramedy, with a sweet, simple storyline about these kids making the best they can of a crappy summer job, something most of us will relate to — who hasn’t had a crappy summer job? Audience response at the packed premiere screening at the Eccles last night was very positive, lots of laughter throughout and enthusiastic applause at the end. It’s overall quite mainstream-accesible, and could have decent cross-over appeal across age ranges.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon