Category Archives: 1980s

Trading Places: A Christmas Classic Worth Celebrating

12 Replies

Black Friday has passed, but Americans still need something to fight about. Christmas has arrived, so fighting over the best Christmas movie seems like the logical next step.

If you are fighting the War On Christmas Movies, you probably fall into one of five camps:

1. Your Favorite is “It’s a Wonderful Life”: That means you have probably watched all of the AFI List specials.

2. Your Favorite is “Home Alone”: You grew up in the 90s. Also, you have a thing for setting up booby traps in your house.

3. Your Favorite is “A Christmas Story”: You will watch it during the entire 24 hour block that runs on TBS on Christmas Day. Also, you’re probably Jewish and couldn’t convince anybody else to go see something in theaters that day.

4. Your Favorite is “Die Hard”: You understand that “Die Hard” isn’t a Christmas movie in a traditional sense. But you don’t care, because you are way too cool for school.

5. Your Favorite is “Jingle All The Way”: Haha we get it. You like being ironic and you probably own a pair of bacon socks from Urban Outfitters and also you’re probably me.

However, I would like to stage a coup, and add a sixth film to the battle. Would anybody care to join me on Team “Trading Places”?


Okay, “Trading Places” isn’t the most traditional Christmas story. Like “Die Hard,” Christmas is more of a backdrop rather than front and center. But the holidays are an open and inviting time, just not for your drunk uncle who won’t stop talking about Obamacare.

In “Trading Places,” two rich old men with too much money and time on their hands want to settle the nature vs. nurture debate once and for all. So they find their lab rats in the form of stock broker Louis Winthorpe III (Dan Aykroyd) and homeless criminal Billy Ray Valentine (Eddie Murphy). Louis finds his money, safety, and sanity all gone. Billy Ray, meanwhile, ends up with millions. The way in which this all transpires is actually quite brilliant and elaborate. Along the way, you’ll get a glimpse of a young Giancarlo Esposito, and way more of a glimpse of Jamie Lee Curtis than you probably ever expected.

“Trading Places” came out in 1983, and is one of the best comedies of the 1980s. It is part of the trend of 80s comedies about how entertaining it is to make fun of the country club crowd. It has been playing on Comedy Central a lot lately, and it gets much better after multiple viewings. It contains some of the best work from all of its stars. It is also a sad reminder that Eddie Murphy was once one of the funniest people on the planet. “Trading Places” is a bit different from the likes of “Caddyshack” and “Ghostbusters.” A lot of jokes fall through the cracks upon a first viewing. It has a much drier sense of humor than most other mainstream American comedies of that time. Well, now that I think about it, watching all three of those movies back to back right now would be pretty awesome.

Anyway, “Trading Places” might be dark for a Christmas movie, but it still embodies the holiday spirit in a way that no Christmas movie starring Tim Allen ever could. “Trading Places” is a film about a bunch of completely different people coming closer together to defeat a common enemy. Who ever thought a businessman, a hobo, and a prostitute could get along? Well, the holidays are a time to put aside your differences and revel in warmth to escape the cold, dark winter.

While you might not have wanted your Christmas movie of choice to feature a lot of talk about whether or not man is good or evil, maybe you might want one where all the Scrooges get screwed to put you in a good mood. It’s nice that the moral in the end is that sometimes, stock fraud is okay.

Plus, if you wanted a good reminder of a few of the racist jokes you might hear during the holidays, look no further than Aykroyd’s blackface. It’s pretty offensive, but also really funny. It’s a forgiving time of year. So you can be forgiven for laughing at it.*

*You can still laugh at it any other time of year. In fact, the great thing about “Trading Places” is that unlike other Christmas movies, you are still legally allowed to watch during any time of the year that you want.

Fun With Trailers: If Taken Was Made In the 80s

Leave a reply

In 2008, “Taken” came out and suddenly turned Liam Nesson into one of Hollywood’s biggest badasses. He became something of an Irish Chuck Norris with less annoying politics.

Anyway, I normally try and avoid most trailers, as nowadays they seem to spoil everything, from the best jokes to the best explosions. But I am always a sucker for a good trailer mashup. And that is exactly what we have here. Below is “The Taking,” a trailer for “Taken” that re-imagines it as a 1980s action film. I did not grow up in the 80s (just to be clear), yet it imitates everything I know of that decade to a T. It feels like it could have been placed amongst the fake trailers in “Grindhouse.” It even looks like it was shot on film.

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies: Night #8

Leave a reply

Spaceballs


Unfortunately, the end of Hanukkah has arrived. But even as you prepare to put the menorah away, there is still one more night worth of a movie left. And what better way to end Hanukkah than with a movie by Mel Brooks, the master of Jewish humor, and of randomly inserting Yiddish jokes into his work.

“Spaceballs” isn’t even the funniest Mel Brooks movie; that honor goes to “Blazing Saddles.” It isn’t the even the smartest; that honor goes to “The Producers.” It doesn’t even have the best Jewish joke; that honor goes to the Jews with Space joke in “History of the World: Part 1.” However, “Spaceballs” just seems like the perfect movie to recommend, maybe because for some time, it was the funniest movie I had ever seen.

“Spaceballs” satirizes both the “Star Wars” movies, and the general way movies were made in the 1980s. Darth Helmet’s (Rick Moranis) ridiculously gigantic helmet is hilarious enough, but the self-referential nature of “Spaceballs” is what helps to make it a minor work of genius. There is one scene where the characters watch themselves watching “Spaceballs.” Most notably though is the scene where the Yoda-spinoff Yogurt (Brooks) explains the concept of merchandising. Its a hilarious and spot-on scene that should be shown in every film business or marketing class. As a kid, I would really have loved to have Spaceballs the Lunchbox, though.

“Spaceballs” remains a standout, and could teach those supposed movie satires made nowadays (I’m looking at you, Seltzer-Friedberg) a thing or two. My only problem with this movie is that if Princess Vespa (Daphne Zuniga) is a Druish princess, who once had a huge nose pre-plastic surgery, then why do her and Lone Star (Bill Pullman) get married in a Church? I guess it’s just as Barf (John Candy) says: “funny, she doesn’t look Druish.”

Watch this clip, and learn a thing or two about merchandising: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvmZ9SPcTzU

Movie Review: Aliens

Leave a reply

It’s time to put on your geek hat and forget for a moment the notion that all sequels suck. Just step back in a time machine and relive the days when summer blockbusters used to be really good, and sequels were more about completing stories than making more money. Today’s sampling: “Aliens.”

“Aliens” might’ve come from a time before advanced CGI, but still holds up as well as any older action film could. “Aliens” leaves off 50 years after “Alien” ended. The last surviving member of the Nostromo, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), has been asleep and floating through space for the past five decades.
Unfortunately, Ripley is not given a hero’s welcome upon returning to Earth. Rather, no one believes her story and she loses her pilot’s license. To top it all off, she is still haunted from the horrible events that happened on that ship (a.k.a. more excuses to show aliens popping out of people’s stomachs).
Humans still remain ignorant of the dangers these creatures pose, and decide to colonize their planet. After some disturbances, Ripley is sent to the planet to investigate the problem. While there, she befriends a brave little girl (Carrie Henn) who’s entire family has been killed, and runs into hundreds of the man-eating aliens. Ripley, it’s time to get back into badass mode.
One thing I sometimes don’t like about sequels is how most times they’re the exact same story as the original, in a slightly altered package. “Aliens” is the rare sequel interested in actually continuing its original story and allowing for further character development. For example, this certainly is not the same Ripley from the first movie. She is at first more vulnerable, and less prepared. It gives her new levels of emotional depth to explore.
Perhaps the main differences between “Alien” and “Aliens” lies in its two very different directors. The original was helmed by Ridley Scott, and the sequel by James Cameron. Both men are infamous perfectionists, but Scott’s filmmaking goes at a much slower pace. His action was less flashy, and it took much longer to build up to it. Cameron, meanwhile, loves to go all out. That is why “Aliens” is so much more of an action driven film.
I don’t mean this to be a bad thing, as Cameron is a master at large-scale filmmaking. Look no further at his future work on “Titanic” and “Avatar.” The action and the violence of “Aliens” are most definitely stunning. Cameron just knows how to elevate everything, from emotions to sound, to make everything more and more tense. Throughout the film you might hear a constant, creepy dripping of water. Or in another scene, when the background score is heard at different volumes in different rooms.
Cameron, like Scott, proves himself a master at utilizing space. The characters of “Aliens” don’t inhabit a space as vast as Pandora. Cameron uses this to create a tighter, more tense mood. The space is also so complex, that the aliens could literally be anywhere.
What also makes Cameron so great is his attention to tiny details. He turns perfectionism into art. He lets the audience pay very close attention to metal bars falling apart when touched to a flame. He also seems endlessly fascinated and obsessed with the weapons his characters use. Small details like this are all a part of universe building. He manages to do this while still maintaining his story.
Before watching “Aliens,” I wondered why Scott wouldn’t come back to complete his own story. It makes sense though, this is Cameron’s type of story. “Alien” was all about mystery; “Aliens” is all about intrigue. Since Cameron loves those details, he’s great with exploring what exactly these aliens are and what they want with us. This comes even more in handy when we finally encounter the angry, bloodthirsty queen.
All of this contributes to a great sci-fi film because part of great sci-fi is the mythology behind it. There is the mythology of both the dystopian future humans have built, and the habits of the aliens. This is something that will continue to make the “Alien” series standout from most other sci-fi.
Some may view James Cameron as a filmmaking God. But he cannot be because if God exists, he would be flawless. Cameron is in serious need of taking some writing classes. The dialogue here is not as bad as in, say “Avatar.” The movie does have its fair share of memorable lines, one in particular when Ripley faces the Queen.
However, there is so much excess dialogue. A perfectly good battle sequence could be ruined by Bill Paxton’s running commentary of every alien he’s just killed. Sometimes, the only sound we should hear are bullets banging and bombs exploding.
The dialogue is just a tiny little dent in a great product. “Aliens” also has something else most sci-fi movies lack: great acting. Mainly, that’s done by Weaver. She exemplifies a great action hero: tough with a soft spot, and endlessly relentless. She’s both hero and human.
Movies have changed much since “Aliens” first premiered, but it still remains a fine model. If more movies tried to be like “Aliens,” then maybe filmmakers could finally find that perfect balance between intelligent and action packed. It’s possible. To all those who forgave the stupidity of “The A-Team” because of its entertainment value, watch “Aliens” to discover that brains and entertainment can mix quite well.

Movie Review: The A-Team

Leave a reply

I hate the existence question. This is when a critic ponders why the movie being reviewed even exists. Every movie has a purpose, whether it is to entertain, provoke thought, or simply steal your money. However, when it comes to remakes of old TV shows, I feel it is totally appropriate to ask, “why must this exist?”

For proof of this, I turn to “The A-Team.” No reason, really. Studio must’ve needed a script quickly and didn’t feel like coming up with a new idea. This movie is a result of Hollywood’s continued lack of ingenuity.
“The A-Team” reminded me a lot of those times when you walk up to a group of kids and one of them says some weird word. Once everyone starts laughing you say, “what’s so funny?” Then, some kid responds by saying “inside joke.” You feel uncomfortable not understanding what is going on and even more annoyed that some joke is so important that it can’t be shared with the rest of the world.
This leads us to the film’s opening. Even though it introduces every single character, there still seems to be something lacking from the backstory. The only way to truly understand what is going on is to have seen the 80s TV series. But who has time for that?
Anyway, our film begins somewhere around the American-Mexican border. While under some intense kidnapping conditions, we meet the team. There’s the cigar smoking Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), the wily Lt. Peck (Bradley Cooper), mentally disturbed Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and conflicted killer B.A. Baracus (Quinton ‘Rampage’ Jackson).
That whole opening scene becomes pretty much pointless, as the film suddenly transitions eight years later from Mexico to Iraq (I guess director Joe Carnahan thought it went better, since both places have sand). Despite so many successful missions, nobody in the military trusts the A-Team because, hey, this is a Hollywood action film. The team is sent on a covert mission to stop some bad business involving counterfeiting Iraqi money. They are setup for murdering a general and wrongfully imprisoned. The rest of the film is them proving their innocence and finding the real bad guys.
What follows is a fairly ridiculous assault on the brain. If the explosions don’t get you, then the extremely twisted (and not in a good way) story lines will. “The A-Team” wants to be a film that relies on twists for good storytelling. The only problem is that it relies on many rather than a few. Sometimes, they occur so closely together that they get tangled. Other times, they just seem to have no reason to be there, except to be really annoying.
Not only does it try to handle so many twists, but it also tries to tackle so many stories. It wants to be both a continuation of the show and an origin story. I can’t speak for how it made fans feel, but all I can say for people new to this story is that it left us in the dark. Should this film even be taken as a serious drama, or a comedy?
At this point, I shouldn’t really expect much story. However, I do expect some production value. While the film certainly looked like it had a budget, it doesn’t look like much of it was used wisely. The film opts for the typical, shaky-cam shot action sequences. Why do action directors love shaky-cam? It creates more nausea than thrills. Have we become so A.D.D. that even a shot that lasts more than two seconds feels long?
Most of the action feels like video game violence. Everything else is so poorly edited that it often feels more like an extended trailer than a feature length film. It just puts “A-Team” into part of this horrible trend of mainstream movies that seem to be marketing products and sequels over actual stories.
What continues to annoy me about the film is some of its underlying smugness. That’s probably because of Carnahan, who also directed “Smokin’ Aces.” “Smokin’ Aces” did Tarantino much worse than it actually thought. Likewise, “A-Team” does corny 80s action much worse than it thinks.
Despite this litany of problems, the film manages to find a few bright spots in the ensemble. Neeson and Cooper just seem to be playing Neeson and Cooper. While it’s hard to ever complain about Neeson’s acting, it’s time for Cooper to find a new character. But it was the other half of the team that was most engaging. This is only Copley’s second performance, but he already knows what kind of an actor he wants to be. He brought to Murdock the same dimwitted charm that made Wikus both so likable and hatable in “District 9.” Jackson does a great job playing Mr. T about as well as Mr. T ever could. His character is also the closest the film comes to creating a sort of satire of a certain archetype.
What “The A-Team” ultimately represents is a death of creativity in Hollywood. It also shows that the moviegoing audience has suddenly lost interest in good ideas. Why couldn’t the inspired take on 80s action in “MacGruber” take hold but the uninspired mess based on an 80s TV show could? For those looking for just a good throwaway experience, this is your movie. For those wanting action with a little more watchability, “Inception” is just a few weeks away.

Movie Review: MacGruber

Leave a reply

To my absolute greatest shock I will say: after a dry spell, someone was finally able to make a good “Saturday Night Live” movie. All it took was some inspiration, and a guy who is involved with the existence of “Hot Rod.”

It’s funny how one of the funniest “Saturday Night Live” movies has come from what is usually one of the least funny sketches. That might be harsh. “MacGruber” is usually funny with the right guest, but usually they kind of just thud. Maybe because the concept, not the execution, was so rich that they were able to make the movie version of “MacGruber” this good.
“MacGruber” can be defined as a satire that’s tonuge-in-cheek, but is not too showy about it. If you haven’t seen the skits, the titular MacGruber (Will Forte) is a secret agent that’s a riff on MacGyver. Like MacGyver, MacGruber is known for making weapons out of random household objects. However, MacGruber sucks at this. Also, he acts like a huge, pompous jerk to everyone he meets. Once again, his weapons don’t even work.
For some reason though, MacGruber is actually widely revered and feared for his skills. In a Ramboesque opening, MacGruber is forced to come out of hiding to foil the evil plans of Dieter Von Cunth* (Val Kilmer). Slo-mo shootouts and dramatic montages ensue.
In a way, it sounds like I just described a mediocre action film. Well, I was. I was also referring to “MacGruber.” While most directors seem to believe that satire comes through lame mimicry, Jorma Taccone, John Solomon, and Forte know that true satire comes through a mix of imitation and originality. The character of MacGruber is both a satire, and his own separate entity.
“MacGruber” has followed suit of several comedies made in the last few years and managed to bring out the 1980s. I never experienced a single year of the 80s and I used to look at it as kind of a joke, but now it isn’t. “MacGruber” might poke fun at 80s action films, but in a very meta way, it becomes one. The wink is so subtle that you won’t even notice it. I would put it more into the category of “Black Dynamite” rather than “Hot Tub Time Machine.” That’s part of what makes “MacGruber” such a great filmgoing experience: it asks for those with a great eye for cinema.
“MacGruber” seems like an 80s action film in its over-the-top action and even more over-the-top storytelling. In “MacGruber” these two elements are maximized to be both ridiculous and endearing. Mainly ridiculous though.
“MacGruber” allows its hero to embody nothing but the worst of the typical action hero. He has that pompous, bossy personality, but he just isn’t a real hero. He always says he has a plan, but that plan always falls apart. He thinks he can make gadgets with anything he finds, but they always fall apart. MacGruber is essentially one of the least likable comedy characters I’ve seen. Even Austin Powers knew how to shoot a gun.
For those who grew up in this era, “MacGruber” will be seen as a great piece of nostalgia. For those who didn’t, there’s still more than enough humor for anyone to thoroughly enjoy. Since it comes from The Lonely Island team, the humor can best be described as absurdist and extremely awkward. It is visual and very situational. One such example involves a scene in which the always great Kristen Wiig as Vicki St. Elmo tries to order a cup of coffee in a MacGruber disguise. She back tracks, and perfect mumbling awkwardness follows.
Meanwhile, Forte is very obviously taking advantage of the lack of TV censors. “MacGruber” might’ve even pushed some MPAA boundaries in the process. Most of the excessive sex and cursing is not for shock value, or just for the sake of it, but mainly because it is actually made funny.
Forte’s “Saturday Night Live” career might be coming close to an end, but he has true potential in the movies. He could carry the weight of a story for 90 minutes and create a unique character. Everyone else in the cast manages to bring something, even if it is small, to the table. Wiig proves as always that no one does awkward quite like her. Ryan Phillippe does some surprisingly good comedic work making fun of the straight man who does nothing but tell the hero he can’t do whatever he’s doing.
What should be considered something of a career comeback, Kilmer shows that his greatest skill lie in comedy. He both looks and acts like a villain on the level of Hans Gruber, mixed with that bad guy with the pony tail from “Kindergarten Cop.”
While most have been panning it left and right, I feel like “MacGruber” is by far the most enjoyable film I’ve seen this summer. It deserves to be mentioned with the other successful “Saturday Night Live” adaptations: “The Blues Brothers,” and “Wayne’s World.” It wasn’t trying to impress us. It wasn’t hiding any agenda (mainly, a sequel). It’s simply doing what it can to make us laugh. Whether that be in a ridiculously out-of-place car, or an unorthodox use for celery, it worked.
*Note: Yes, I’m aware.

Movie Review: Hot Tub Time Machine

Leave a reply

In his review of “Shutter Island,” the New Yorker’s Anthony Lane drew upon a quote from Umberto Eco: “Two cliches make us laugh but a hundred cliches move us, because we sense dimly that the cliches are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion.” Lane was using this to describe a totally different movie, but I think it fits even more perfectly into “Hot Tub Time Machine.”

“Hot Tub Time Machine” is the 1980s comedy made for 2010, both stylistically and literally. It begins in the modern day. The film’s anti-heros, three best friends who’ve hit some rocky times, are typical everyday schlubs. Adam (John Cusack) has to deal with both a recent breakup and his reclusive nephew (Clark Duke) who lives with him. Nick (Craig Robinson) is a burnt out musician, and Lou (Rob Corddry) is an alcoholic who has just hit rock bottom.
Well, the first half of the premise probably made this movie sound a little too serious. Just wait until you hear the next part. The four head up to a now decrepit ski resort to try and relive their glory days. After a night of too much to drink, the boys’ hot tub sends them back to the 1980s. There, they relive all the greatest moments of their life, and those they tried to totally forget about.
“Hot Tub Time Machine” can be described as a different kind of nostalgia. It’s a nostalgic tone that’s both a little mocking, and a little reminiscent. Unlike some other previous homage films such as “Black Dynamite,” “Hot Tub Time Machine” wouldn’t totally fit in as a film in the 1980s. It does contain everything we love about an 80s classic, but with the wisdom of someone living in the year 2010.
However, this isn’t to say that “Hot Tub Time Machine” doesn’t evoke its era well. When it does go back in time, it does everything it can to put you into the year 1986 from the music people listened to, to the kind of shoes they wore. Then, it crams in about a million different 80s movie cliches. There’s the upper class bully, the losing-your-virginity story, and of course, some anti-Communist paranoia. “Red Dawn” style.
It really does feel like all of these different cliches are having a reunion together. It could be that the writers, director, and actors were actually having a fun time with it all, or that this era of filmmaking had a little more depth than ever imagined. Maybe this was just an era where people were making films about the world they wished they lived in, rather than what it actually was.
Even for a film that’s unapologetically dirty (consider this a warning), there is still something very smart behind its stupidity. The film’s humor is a mix of gross out and tongue-in-cheek.
Perhaps the one moment in the film that could actually be described as brilliant comes after the characters have been transferred back to the 80s. Robinson remarks, “must be a…hot tub time machine.” Then he just stares at the camera. Not only have the filmmakers broken the fourth wall, but they’ve also managed to make fun of how films try to incorporate their titles into their dialogue while at the same time creating one of the best title tie-ins I’ve seen in a movie.
“Hot Tub Time Machine” would definitely have been a failure had it not been for a cast and crew who actually knows their way around the subject. I would like to point out that co-writer Sean Anders, who also wrote the awful “Sex Drive,” manages to succeed here by actually putting funny words on a page.
I think the cast really helped make the film even better. You can feel that they took control and made it their film as well. Corddry finally got the breakout role he deserved, and he’s certainly gotten the a-hole personality down well. Robinson always incorporates his smooth talking, but sometimes very angry, personality and turns it into laughs.
Then, of course, there’s Cusack. Here, Cusack seems to play a bit more of a demented version of Lloyd Dobler and any other romantic he played during the 80s. There’s something about his personality that is so endearing. Maybe it’s that he never seems happy yet he’s never a killjoy. I think it might be a little closer to his performance than “Better Off Dead” than in “Say Anything…” What I really want to say here is that I hope Cusack takes more roles like “Hot Tub Time Machine” and less like “2012.”
There is one thing I’ve thought about complaining about in “Hot Tub Time Machine.” However, I can’t bring myself to because it actually works here. That one thing is how much the premise resembles “The Hangover.” It’s also about the result of a night of debauchery and contains the same archetypal characters. But as long as this premise keeps working, I will keep seeing movies just like it. This premise might one day become the cliche to define the 2000s.
“Hot Tub Time Machine” broke the fourth wall in more ways than mentioned before. The sum of the film and its characters is not just homage to the films of the 80s, but rather both the characters and the filmmakers looking back at what that era meant. It fits the style of the 80s into the style of the present. Oh, and most importantly, it’s just the kind of film that you see, laugh at, and then keep laughing at long after it ends.
80s Movies That Likely Inspired Hot Tub Time Machine: Back to the Future, Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, One Crazy Summer, The Breakfast Club, Say Anything…, Red Dawn, Sixteen Candles, Better Off Dead, Weird Science, Encino Man (Not 80s, but close enough)

Patrick Swayze: 1952-2009

Leave a reply

Various sources have officially reported that actor Patrick Swayze, known primarily for his work in “Dirty Dancing” and “Ghost,” died today after a long battle with pancreatic cancer. He was 57.

Swayze became a household name in the 80s and 90s, beginning with his patriarch-like role in “The Outsiders” as Darrel Curtis. He’s probably most well known for his performance in “Dirty Dancing,” in which he spewed one of the most imitated lines in the movies: “Nobody puts baby in the corner.” Swayze is also defined by his role in the classic cheesy 80s action flick “Road House.”
The one performance I won’t forget from him is a recent one, his role as the phony inspirational speaker in “Donnie Darko.” In it, he channeled a level of subtle creepiness that was perfectly hidden under what seemed like over-the-top kindness. But when that one twisted secret is revealed about him, no one should have been the least bit surprised. Now, that was good acting; and today, that legacy will hopefully not be forgotten.

Movie Review: Adventureland

2 Replies

I never had the pleasure of growing up in the 1980s. However, after watching “Adventureland,” I almost feel like I did. 

The best period pieces must be made years after the year they are set in, especially if they’re a teen angst dramedy. “Dazed & Confused” was set in 1976, but came out in 1993. “Adventureland” takes place in the summer of 1987. It’s a few months before the “Black Monday” stock market crash, but already the family of James (Jesse Eisenberg) is facing financial trouble. James recently graduated from college. Before going to grad school in New York, he plans on spending the summer in Europe. However, his father’s recent demotion brings an end to his plans, and instead James must work the summer for grad school money.
The job market of ’87 looked just about as bad as the job market of ’09, as James can barely get a job. However, there is one place in the Pittsburgh area that will take him: Adventureland Amusement Park. Taking this job becomes both the best and worst mistake of his entire life.
While working there, James associates with philosophical Joel (Martin Starr), an immature friend (Matt Bush), a failed rockstar (Ryan Reynolds), two awkward bosses (Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig), and of course, Emma (Kristen Stewart). In Emma, James finds what he could never find in any other girl.
Besides the relationship between James and Em, “Adventureland” has no strict plot to follow. It would make sense that writer-director Greg Mottola, who also directed Judd Apatow produced “Superbad,” would use this Apatow plot device. However, credit for this goes way back to directors like Hal Ashby. Ashby never attended to make plots; but rather, people. In movies like “Harold and Maude,” Ashby just tried to let the growing relationship between Harold and Maude but on its own. Mottola attempts to do the same with James and Em.
Mottola is not known as much for film as he is for television. He’s directed episodes of two of the best shows ever: “Undeclared” and “Arrested Development.” However, he’s started to become a formidable comedy movie director. While “Superbad” was certainly well made, “Adventureland” truly shows his talents for he both wrote and directed it. Therefore, “Adventureland” feels like a much more personal film, as he is bringing to life his own story and not somebody else’s. That is probably why every shot is filmed with both giant and pain and an ounce of joy, a sort of uplifting light of love seems to shine from above throughout.
“Adventureland” is to the ’80s what “Dazed & Confused” was to the ’70s: an extremely stylish, extremely accurate piece of nostalgia. Like any good director making a period piece, Mottola focuses on the little details to make the movie feel exactly like the ’80s. And it does. He emphasizes everything from the cars, to the outfits, to the way people dance. He especially emphasizes the music. He uses many bands popular in the ’80s; mainly the soothing sounds of Lou Reed & The Velvet Underground. The soundtrack, while great to listen to, is there for a reason. It’s not only there to remind us of the decade we’re watching, but to also reveal little minor things about the characters. For example, Mike’s (Reynolds) inability to name the song “Satellite of Love” correctly reveals his underlying phoniness.
The characters for the most part, are well cast. Eisenberg broke out in 2005 with “The Squid and the Whale.” While he played Walt in “Squid” with much more hidden sadness and an outer layer of betrayal, all of James’s emotions are on his sleeves. Eisenberg plays him with flawless awkward vulnerability. He is no doubt one of the best young actors out there today.
 Perhaps the film’s biggest mistake is Reynolds. He is a decent actor, but he really doesn’t bring much to the character. While it would’ve been nice to see Mike played with much more vulnerability, Reynolds just makes him seem like too much of an invincible human being. Maybe that’s because Mike is a little smug, but he obviously has some marriage problems. 
Another small mistake made by Motolla is the criminal underuse of Hader and Wiig. The pair is only in a few scenes. However, Hader steals every moment he’s in, bringing that same zaniness to the film that has made him one of the funniest people in comedy. Wiig manages to be funny by just standing there and making creepy faces. I don’t think it would’ve killed them to give her a few more lines, but maybe she’s just one of those comedians like John Belushi whose funnier when they aren’t saying anything.
Perhaps “Adventureland” is such a convincing nostalgia film because not only does it feel like your looking at the 1980s, but it also feels like a movie that could’ve been made in the ’80s. The influences of such ’80s icons as John Hughes and films such as “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” feels tangible. While I enjoyed pretty much every minute of this hilarious and moving dramedy, some references did escape me. Oh well, I guess you just, kind of had to be there.
Recommended for Fans of: Dazed & Confused, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, The Graduate, Superbad, Knocked Up, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Harold and Maude, The Last Detail

John Hughes: The Man Who Made High School a Little Less Miserable Dies at 59

Leave a reply

It’s been a strange summer. Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Karl Malden, and Walter Cronkite all succumbed to long, terminal illnesses. Meanwhile, Michael Jackson and Billy Mays both died unexpectedly. Today, another great was lost unexpectedly. John Hughes, the renowned director of such 80s classics as “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “The Breakfast Club,” “Weird Science,” and “Sixteen Candles,” died today of a heart attack. He was 59.

Nearly every major comedy director today looking to make a high school film will tell you that they’re inspiration is John Hughes. Others might tell you otherwise, but what they’re really trying to do is recreate what John Hughes did to comedy in the 1980s. 
I’m sad to say I’ve only seen two Hughes films; both however, are nothing short of classics. I first watched “Ferris Bueller” in fifth grade. Ferris was always someone I wish I could be. With that movie, Hughes managed to obtain great screwball comedy as well as one of the greatest lines in movie history: “Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.” Years later, and that’s still the one quote most people are putting into their senior high school yearbooks.
I watched “The Breakfast Club” in health class. Yes, “The Breakfast Club” captures high school so well that even teachers seem to think it’s good enough to be shown in school. Hughes did a mastery job with “The Breakfast Club” by making it a film that doesn’t focus on one clique, but rather on all of them. And in that, Hughes captured what it meant to be a teenager.
Hughes was known as being rather reclusive; he hadn’t directed a movie since 1991.  He was almost like the J.D. Salinger of directors, rarely doing interviews or even showing his face in public. But he didn’t have to, the movies spoke for themselves. They speak as the ultimate testament to teen angst.
The song at the finale of “The Breakfast Club” might be called “Don’t You Forget About Me.” John, we won’t be forgetting about you anytime soon.