(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwearemoviegeeks.com%2Fwp-content%2Fadventurelandposter1.jpg&hash=c8b9890b246752f354f36b871a40bdda7be77131)
Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809942145/trailer)
Release Date: March 27th, 2009 (wide)
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Ryan Reynolds, Kristen Stewart, Martin Starr, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig
Directed by: Greg Mottola
Premise: When an uptight recent college graduate realizes he cannot afford his European dream vacation, he is forced to take a minimum-wage job at a local amusement park.
This looks like a fun summer movie. The type where it's starting to warm up and you can bust out your short shorts and hot box your friends car and go catch a mindless flick.
Hell ya stefen! Lets do that sometime!
bill haverchuck!
Red Band Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZY47LUT6AU)
Everyone I've talked to who saw the sneak peak says this is awesome. I think I'm gonna check it out this weekend.
I'm really excited about this. Please post your reviews!
As much as I enjoyed Superbad this one really feels like its going to have some staying power.
So I went and saw it. It was awesome. It really has it's heart in the right place. Everyone really feels like a real person instead of a character in a comedy. Some of the editing was sloppy, but it was really funny and never got too sappy or corny.
Ryan Reynolds is really underrated. He's always putting in good work in whatever he does. He's in some shitty movies, but they're never shitty because of him. If anything, he makes them watchable.
I think the flick really benefited from not having a giant name in it. It's got names, but it doesn't have a Seth Rogen or one of the big Apatow guys. It really helped the sense of realism.
Kristen Stewart is kind of a shitty actress. Her range is non-existent. She's always so conflicted. Her acting consists of being confused all the time and not knowing how to answer shit. "Uh, yeah, I mean, sure. It's okay, I guess. I was just....doing laundry." You suck!
I love movies like this where the minor characters are some of the best things about the movie.
Also this movie has awesome guilty pleasure tunes in it.
Probably my favorite movie of the year (so far). Imagine that.
i loved it. the best portrayal of a "nice guy" so far with a lot of insights and empathy for all sorts of young adult sexual behaviors. I thought I'd like kristen stewart more than I did like her. she was a good character, but was not as smokey as she was in Into the Wild. She did have one very heartfelt line with a heartbreaking delivery. Jesse Eisenberg was good, he was like the actor's version of Michael Cera. Was this his third time as a virgin in movies? The movie gets a lot of things right, particularly the moments ruined by the guy too paralyzed to make a move. Pretty great.
My favorite thing about the script though, was that there wasn't a real "ticking bomb" though the story took place over a summer and nothing was really at "stake" either, just relationships that mean a lot to the characters and the audience. So fuck your proper drama structures. Wisdom and warmth and vulgarity can sometimes drive a film beautifully.
Quote from: Stefen on April 05, 2009, 03:15:54 AM
Ryan Reynolds is really underrated. He's always putting in good work in whatever he does. He's in some shitty movies, but they're never shitty because of him. If anything, he makes them watchable.
true that !
I'm gonna see it soon, can't wait
Quote from: Pas Rap on April 08, 2009, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: Stefen on April 05, 2009, 03:15:54 AM
Ryan Reynolds is really underrated. He's always putting in good work in whatever he does. He's in some shitty movies, but they're never shitty because of him. If anything, he makes them watchable.
true that !
I'm gonna see it soon, can't wait
Stefen really wanted to say that Ryan Reynolds is a Green Bay Packers fan, too. Canadian by birth, but Packers fan by conquest. That's really why he's special.
^lol. Oh, wow -- all of a sudden Ryan Reynolds is OVERrated. :wink:
I agree on the Reynolds front. I like him in everything - I just usually don't like his movies. I want to cast him in something someday.
There are certain movies that I appreciate without liking very much, and there are certain movies that I like alright but couldn't watch again. This movie is one or both of those. Really graceful cinematic poetry but I think it was too authentic. Sometimes people don't want to say that as a negative but I don't mind: this movie was as fucking boring in certain parts as I'm sure the actual lived experience was. Rouben Mamoulian used to say that you can't make a movie that directly depicts life because life stops you. Actually he said "I do appreciate the mastery behind it, but my heart is not in it, because to me naturalism, realism, physical realism is a moribund thing. It has a dead end. So you came as close as you can to life and then what? Life stops you. That's the limit. Realism is good for travelogues and documentaries or the newsreels but not for fiction films. Poetry, imagination, style have no limit and I'd much rather fly in those areas." I also always like to quote a description of Kandinsky's artistic method I read once, that he "abstracted the intrinsic elements."
It's not an absolute. For example I really like the cinema of Aaron Katz and Andrew Bujalski and Alexander Payne and etc etc there are many examples of filmmakers who I think approach filmmaking as Snoozeland did and are still able to touch me move me etc etc.
When I think of this movie I think of 2-3 scenes I really liked but I don't think fondly of the movie as a whole.
Soon I'll talk about how much I loved Minnie and Moskowitz and Love Streams and I'll make a point to try and expand on some of things I want to say here.
So you like Fast and Furious for having a couple really fun parts, but you hate this one for having a couple really fun parts?
Quote from: Stefen on April 10, 2009, 09:00:24 PM
So you like Fast and Furious for having a couple really fun parts, but you hate this one for having a couple really fun parts?
Are you serious with this statement? I really don't think I could contrast these two movies, but maybe my experiences with each, if you're actually serious with this statement.
No need to go on the defensive. I'm just saying I think it's funny that you can praise a shitty movie like Fast and Furious but dislike Adventureland and everything you've seen so far of Where The Wild Things Are. That's all.
I got that in the Fast and Furious thread. I just think that kind of logic really impedes an appreciation for disparate and eclectic films from a vast range of existing and forthcoming cinematic experiences, you know?
Quote from: w/o horse on April 10, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
There are certain movies that I appreciate without liking very much, and there are certain movies that I like alright but couldn't watch again. This movie is one or both of those. Really graceful cinematic poetry but I think it was too authentic.
Too authentic? Reading this post reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall when Woody is standing in line at the movie theater and has to listen to that misguided know-it-all wax nonsensical on Fellini. Where's Marshall Mcluhan when you need him.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fmcluhan.jpg&hash=c20c2a1a94a3d88857cb85663c7dea03b8ea3bb6)
I heard what you were saying! You know nothing of my work!
admin-edit: spell-check. had to. it said "I head".
what i wouldn't give for a large sock with horse manure in it..
Quote from: ©brad on April 11, 2009, 02:11:08 PM
Quote from: w/o horse on April 10, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
There are certain movies that I appreciate without liking very much, and there are certain movies that I like alright but couldn't watch again. This movie is one or both of those. Really graceful cinematic poetry but I think it was too authentic.
Too authentic? Reading this post reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall when Woody is standing in line at the movie theater and has to listen to that misguided know-it-all wax nonsensical on Fellini. Where's Marshall Mcluhan when you need him.
Are you fucking kidding me? Because this is a movie message board, not a movie line. And you don't even seem to have an opinion of the movie. Why would you cut off the post at exactly the moment I qualify the statement and add commentary to it just to make a cheap Woody Allen joke?
The Wild Things thread was alright because I voiced my unpopular opinion and then like one or two people offered some insights into their perspective and there was kind of a dialogue that took place, amidst some admittedly Internet-typical but a-okay oneliners, and that short exchange was about the most meaningful experience I've had on this board in months. So don't give me your pretentious bullshit and act like I'm being pretentious here, because I fucking love movies and love talking about movies and hearing you guys talking about movies. It's the only reason I come here. And I've always been ready to discuss a movie or my opinion about a movie, and it's not like I'm some guy in a line you don't know. So fuck you. And fuck dragging your sore ass over from whatever bullshit disagreement of opinion forced you to single out my post like that.
Months ago I thought I'd leave here because of a drifting interest in the movies typically talked about here. Then I thought maybe I could come here and discuss the reasons I don't like the movies that are talked about here. But obviously I can't. And here's a nice final rant to make some lame-ass Internet disses at.
I agree wholeheartedly with W/O horse here. I'm a bit sad because this place is turning into a breeding ground for sarcastic and stupid remarks rather than actually discussing films delicately and deeply. Hey I have had my share of showing my disposing wit and since Pubrick, the king of quick quips left, stefen has taken his place. Maybe this isn't the right thread to discuss this, but fuck it. I'm on a roll. I just think its sad hat most of us can't wax more insightfully on why certain films are terrible or decent. Sure, in the past, there was some conversation but it is mostly seen by GT and in the green screen where most posters didn't go and if they did, they didn't offer up a counter agrument that was full fledged, sans the attack GT gave on 'There Will Be Blood'. Maybe the economy is making people extra cranky but seriously, can we stop the bullshit laughs before this turns into any AINT IT COOL Message Board and actually discuss films now?
I suppose I'm gonna get shit for this, just wanted to put my three cents out there.
Quote from: w/o horse on April 11, 2009, 09:24:21 PMMonths ago I thought I'd leave here because of a drifting interest in the movies typically talked about here. Then I thought maybe I could come here and discuss the reasons I don't like the movies that are talked about here. But obviously I can't.
Of course you can. I didn't mean to insinuate that your critiques were asinine or without merit, because they're not. Perhaps my snarky Woody Allen joke was in poor taste, but again, it was a joke, and I don't feel the need to apologize for it. I was reacting to your argument that authenticity can be a bad thing, which I might argue is impossible, because if something is bad it's most likely due to a lack of authenticity. If you found the film (which for the record I have not seen) boring, well that has to do with how the story is structured, paced, and the overall mechanics of drama rather than the tone and style being too "authentic."
Quote from: pete on April 08, 2009, 03:31:52 PMMy favorite thing about the script though, was that there wasn't a real "ticking bomb" though the story took place over a summer and nothing was really at "stake" either, just relationships that mean a lot to the characters and the audience. So fuck your proper drama structures. Wisdom and warmth and vulgarity can sometimes drive a film beautifully.
Pete makes a nice point here, and it makes me excited to see this film. School teaches you that every story needs to have a macguffin, a ticking bomb of sorts, because otherwise you'll put your audience to sleep. I think that's bullshit. And, I think your reaction to this film is less about authenticity and more about its lacking conventional narrative stuff. Beyond anything, what a film needs is dynamic, substantive characters.
To me, the best thing about the film was the characters and the way they all reacted to eachother. It all felt very genuine.
There wasn't a giant spectacle that was driving the story. Relationships between the characters drove the story and like pete said, that drove the film fine.
I read this page and all the good words. I went to the theater, couldn't choose a film. So I decided to go see FAST AND FURIOUS because I had thought I was on the Fast and Furious thread when I read this. So at the theater I thought ''apparently this one is really character driven and authentic, might be interesting'' :doh:
spoilers
I also really liked that moment when James went to Joel's house. I liked the fact that they added a "real loser" in the movie. And the moment when he sees them leaving through his broken glass is heartbreaking.
Quote from: Pas Rap on April 12, 2009, 12:56:11 PM
I read this page and all the good words. I went to the theater, couldn't choose a film. So I decided to go see FAST AND FURIOUS because I had thought I was on the Fast and Furious thread when I read this. So at the theater I thought ''apparently this one is really character driven and authentic, might be interesting'' :doh:
whatever excuse makes you feel better.
I wasn't into this. I'm not sure why, I didn't think it was bad, I just thought it settled toward the forgettable middle. I'm tired of seeing Eisenberg in this role and the Hader/Wiig stuff is a little too broad for the rest of the film. Admittedly I saw a screener of this and whenever I watch one of those I feel like it's not a "real" movie, but I feel like if I had gone to the theatre I'd be pretty meh on it as well.
Quote from: w/o horse on April 10, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
Soon I'll talk about how much I loved Minnie and Moskowitz and Love Streams and I'll make a point to try and expand on some of things I want to say here.
Were you at the New Beverly the other night too?
Quote from: Ghostboy on April 12, 2009, 06:06:48 PM
Quote from: w/o horse on April 10, 2009, 08:57:23 PM
Soon I'll talk about how much I loved Minnie and Moskowitz and Love Streams and I'll make a point to try and expand on some of things I want to say here.
Were you at the New Beverly the other night too?
I was as well...and my reviews are coming soon. Great to see the rambling seymore cassell there.
I'm glad I was prepared for how mis-marketed this thing was and didn't go in hoping for stupidity.
It was a REAL movie and I really liked it. If I had anything negative to say about it, it's that Hader and Wiig didn't seem to belong... Hader probably would have worked, but Wiig didn't seem to get this wasn't the comedy she thought she was in and made Hader's character seem out of place by proxy.
Martin Starr... like a more real Bill... so good... related so much.
I liked this film a lot too. The character could have been filmic conventions but they were real and relatable. Not much I can add to what others have already said.
This is out on video now. There's no reason why those who missed it's theatrical run shouldn't catch it on dvd. It's really a good movie.
Kristin Stewart is a bit annoying, isn't she? I'm not talking about Twilight, I haven't seen it and I don't consider it. I'm talking in this movie and the couple other ones I've seen her in. Her face is very punchable to me.
I was underwhelmed by this one. Too much depressed or stressed out characters. I don't know.
She's just a bad actress.
It's a nice face, it's just frozen in a very punchable expression all the time.
Liked her in Into The Wild. Maybe her appeal only works in small roles. :yabbse-undecided:
She's the female Ed Norton.
"Um, it's just that, um, listen, can you, how do I say this? Um, look, can you just, um, pass the maple syrup? Okay, um, thanks."
Spit it the fuck out, Girl version of Ed Norton.
I like her.
i like her being punched after she sighs a lot
while she wears a husker dü tshirt
in twilight it was almost unbearable to watch, wasn't enough the movie was bad, her acting made it worse, in fact it's the worst acting ive seen in a while (both leads).
she was ok thou in undertow and panic room, although I realized the teenager was a girl til the middle of the movie.
Quote from: Fernando on September 04, 2009, 01:33:55 PM
in twilight it was almost unbearable to watch, wasn't enough the movie was bad, her acting made it worse, in fact it's the worst acting ive seen in a while (both leads).
That hospital scene is so cringe-worthy.
haha, isn't she playing joan jett? she's like the anti joan jett.
i loved every second of this.
im bumping it just in case someone hasnt seen it yet, although probably everyone did already.
read what pete and stefen said about it, it's that good and worth you're while, it's not full of jokes like superbad and the characters feel very real and honest.
I was gonna say that this is my fave apatow produced film but to my surprised he didnt have a hand in this, and for the best since i haven't liked many of his films (produced or directed).
i could watch a full movie of Lisa p dancing.