Ryan McNeil
Take audiences back to a simpler time, and that should be enough to sell them on what you want to say. That is, of course, unless you don’t really have much to say in the first place.
Our story begins in the late eighties. James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) has just graduated from college and has plans to spend his summer before grad school traveling with friends through Europe. Unfortunately, his parents have had a financial setback, and not only has that scuttled his travel plans, but also his funding for grad school. James needs a job, and much to his chagrin, he can do no better than a summer gig at Adventureland – a theme park that ranks somewhere between Six Flags and a county fair, leaning heavily towards the latter.
The job is crappy to say the least, but there’s a silver lining in the friends James makes. He finds kinship with Joel, a similarly hapless geek who is far too qualified to be running a ring-toss and gets funny looks for his affinity of smoking a pipe. He gets mentorship from Mike (Ryan Reynolds), the park’s maintenance man who seems to want to help Jesse shed the stigma that virginity brings with it. And finally there’s Em (Kristen Stewart), a confidently laid back girl who befriends James, and who he quickly falls for.
However, as often happens in a close-knit group, there are subplots a-plenty amongst these young hip carnies. Much of centres around Em, who despite her budding coziness with James, has been sneaking around with Mike for over a year – completely unbeknownst to our young hero of course. Likewise, there is the sultry Lisa P (Margarita Levieva), the object of every guy who works at the park. She also takes a shining to young James, but why would he be chasing after her when he seems to have such a good thing going with Em? All just par for the course during one crazy summer in Pittsburgh.
ADVENTURELAND is yet another love letter to a particular era. We all have our fondness for times in our past (1994 does it for me), and once a year or so, a screenwriter’s ode to a better time makes the jump to the big screen. The funny thing is that in this case the story didn’t take it quite far enough. The movie is supposed to be set in 1987, but there are moments that could be 1980…moments that could be 1985…moments that could be 1977. If not for the theme park’s obsession with “Rock Me Amadeus”, the movie could be set anytime over the span of ten years. What I’m left asking, is “why do that”? If there’s something about the era that is supposed to drive this story, why leave the era so ambiguous? Perhaps if the setting were more concise, my nostalgic sense might tingle, and leave me with a better impression of the film.
There were precious few things the poor sense of setting didn’t ruin for me…and the wickedly bad casting took care of the rest. The guy might be trying to branch out, but it’s tough to buy Van Wilder as the theme park douchebag. Jesse Eisenberg might have better parts in his future, but all I could think about as he played his part was that he was a last second sub when Michael Cera turned the part down. Then there’s Kristen Stewart. The once and future Bella has a tough time getting through this film. For a girl who is supposed to be as savvy and sultry as Em is, why does Kristen Stewart play her as vacant and slutty? It’s possible I might have enjoyed this movie more were a more charming cast given the parts.
ADVENTURELAND seems to suffer from a touch of identity crisis. It provides a laugh or two, but isn’t funny enough to be a funny movie. It also contains a tender scene here or there, but isn’t sweet enough to be a sweet movie. I’m fighting hard not to provide specific comparisons to the films I have in mind, but essentially ADVENTURELAND strikes me as the first draft of a lot of similar stories I’ve watched in recent years. It’s a shame too, since I have the suspicion that good copy of this rough draft would make for a charming and entertaining film.
Interesting…this is the first bad review I’ve read of the movie, which seems to be getting a very positive response, particularly in the blogosphere. I myself haven’t seen it yet, so I don’t know.
As for your example though, I’d say that it takes about 20 years rather than 10. The bands you mention playing local venues is more evidence of their decline than their re-emergence. After 5 years, a given era seems passe, another 5 and it seems positively dated, another 5-10 and it’s ripe for nostalgia.
I mean, honestly, 10 years ago did anyone think the 80s would ever be rehabilited? Yet, more or less, they have been (and now its the 90s which look vaguely trashy).
Gotta disagree with you almost entirely here Hatter…I just went to see it last night for the second time in the theatre and loved it just as much as the first time.
I think it completely succeeds as a charming sweet film. It’s definitely not the laugh riot it was marketed as, but it wasn’t intended to be. It’s a personal film from the director harking back to this particular time of his life (hence the 1987 setting), but I think it’s universal enough.
And Kristen Stewart is terrific in her role. Vacant and slutty? Really? One of the reasons James is drawn to her is her easy intelligence and ability to talk and understand and appreciate his own thoughts (compare her reaction to his comments about being a latter day Dickens to Lisa P’s). Yeah, she’s had, ahem, a few boyfriends, but I think her issues at home (mother passing away, distant father who invests much more into his work, status obsessed mother-in-law) show that her recent relationships (particularly with Mike) are attempts to find some kind of closeness.
But at its core it’s about taking control of your own life. Dealing with the good and bad of that, but taking responsibility and taking the first steps to being a real full fledged adult. Any further tinkering of the script would’ve created either a laugh riot (fine, but not what they were going for) or a cheesy drama.
And 1987 is all over the place – but sometimes in subtle ways. The music of course is a huge part and I’ll admit grabbed me. Husker Du’s “Don’t Want To Know If You Are Lonely” is a great bonding experience between James and Em early on, “Just Like Heaven” is used perfectly during the bumper cars, “Breaking The Law” by Judas Priest was a blast and “Don’t Change” by INXS could not have been a better outro.
It’s not just the music though – the complete lack of instant communication devices, the cars, the parents’ clothes, etc. But it didn’t make a big deal of it which I found, well, refreshing to be honest. The movie’s not about that time period, but it simply adds to it.
And I found the relationship between Mike and James to be more interesting than douchebag to geek. By the end, Mike still isn’t ready to lead his own life (won’t leave a loveless marriage, makes up stories about his rock and roll life, etc.) and he and James both see that.
Sorry, a bunch of rambling thoughts there…But I think you’re shortchanging the film. It has its awkward moments I must say, but I’m so glad it didn’t try to be funnier or focus on those crazy 80s.
Wow Bob…I do believe you take the prize for the longest comment ever left on my blog. Your prize is my rebuttal!
I refrained from comparisons in the body of my post, but I'll use them here. I can see how it was aiming to be a charming, sweet film – but on the whole I was charmed more by JUNO, THE WACKNESS, and NICK & NORAH. You're right though – the marketing on this film leaves me scratching my head.
You're half right with Em. As a character she is supposed to be very intelligent, easy-going and quietly damaged. I just didn't buy it the way Stewart sold it. The girl seems to have one permanent expression, and can only convey depth by running her fingers through her hair. The charatecr is pretty interesting, but I couldn't seem to get past the casting. Give the part to a better actress, and I probably would have fallen for the result.
1987 is touched upon, wouldn't really say it's "all over the place". Take out the soundtrack and there's really only two clues – the style of the tee shirts they have to wear, and the quick shot of Reagan on TV talking about Iran-Contra. The way everyone was talking about Lou Reed, I coulda swore it was 1980…closer to his heyday. You have a point though, perhaps the reason they played it down is because the era wasn't essential to the story.
I didn't dig it…and clearly seem to be in the minority…but you make a good case. maybe I'll give it another look sometime.
Your rebuttal is my prize? Uh, can I choose door number 3 instead?
Thanks for responding though…I love discussion. Your opinion is obviously as equally valid as mine in this case – as long as you understand you're wrong. B-)
I haven't seen The Wackness, but I found Adventureland far more sweet and charming than either Juno or Nick & Nora. Both those latter films attempted to be too clever at times so I didn't feel as natural a connection with the characters (though I still quite enjoyed Juno and wanted to enjoy Nick & Nora).
We'll have to agree to disagree on Stewart. I could absolutely see why the character of James would fall for Em. As for the playing with the hair, you may be right regarding her overuse of it as an acting crutch, but I felt it worked with her character. That's what people do in nervous situations or when they don't have enough self-confidence in themselves – they fall back to habits.
I do agree about Lou Reed – it works as an artist that intellectuals like James would be into, but not as much as someone that Mike would use to impress young girls.
Yeah, what Bob said. This is my favorite of the year thus far.
As for the ‘not feeling enough 1987,’ I think you were taking your clues too much from the soundtrack. After all, are all of the songs you listen to now released in the last 12 months or so? I bet not; there’s a mix of new and old playing through everyone’s head at all times. I know I’m not the only one, but I was glad that it wasn’t drenched in late 80s nostaglia. It happened to be set in 1987, but didn’t feel like it needed to remind you of that every 3 minutes. The result is something that lets you think about the characters and plot more than it does the era specifically.