BDK and the Beard Round 2

Hello my faithful readers (i.e. Mom and Dad). As I promised (but never thought I'd follow through on), Mr. Kevin McCarthy, host of BDK's Movie Show, and myself have produced another podcast breaking down the week's new movies.

This week, we discuss and review The Soloist, Earth, Fighting, and Obsessed. We also have a hilarious argument over which film is better: Face/Off or Terminator 2: Judgment Day that you absolutely need to hear.

In full disclosure, we didn't have time to do this podcast until the wee hours of the morning (around 1:30am) after a long Friday of constant work, so we're both a bit sluggish at first, but our natural charm ends up getting the best of us and we reach the finish line with a sprint.

So enjoy the second of many weekly podcasts with the Beard and BDK (check out his website here). And don't forget to listen to BDK's Movie Show every Friday night from 7-10pm on 106.7 WJFK or listen live at wjfk.com.

BDK and the Beard review April 24th releases: The Soloist, Earth, Fighting, and Obsessed.

Earth A Treat For All

Being the avid movie watcher that I am, I sometimes get too wrapped up in how well a movie is made and I tend to give a lot of credit to screenwriters who can deliver a captivating story to sustain me through an hour and a half. But then something like Earth comes along and reminds me that enchanting stories are all around us; we just aren't looking hard enough. Earth is blissful, a joyous celebration of life that absolutely needs to be seen.

Yes, this is basically a longer version of the hit show, "Planet Earth," but seeing it on the big screen is nothing short of astounding. It features stunning imagery so unreal you won't believe your eyes. When all you see in front of you are these mesmerizing shots of rarely seen parts of the world, you can't help but fall to your knees in astonishment. When you tack on a lovely score that perfectly accommodates the onscreen visuals, you get a sizable documentary that is perfect for anyone with an appreciation for nature.

Unfortunately, that's about as far as my accolades go because Earth is not a movie you can simply describe. It has to be seen. There are only so many ways you can say, "It was beautiful" before you start to grow stale. And indeed, it was a wonder to behold, but it isn't perfect.

The film is narrated by James Earl Jones and although he does a serviceable job, his speech tends to go on for too long. Like I said, the film is terrific to look at. Why ruin it with talking? Just let me watch and allow for the nature to sink in. Moments in this movie that would have otherwise been awe inspiring were ruined by the cutesy, sometimes gag worthy narration. I know it's cute. I don't need Darth Vader telling me that through condescending baby talk.

The movie was also disorganized, attempting to cover too much ground in its short 90 minute runtime. As the trailer suggests, we follow the lives of animals for a year, and that actually turns out to be its biggest problem. A year is a long time where many things happen that provide many opportunities to learn, but there is no focus. The film jumps from animal to animal and from place to place constantly, resulting in a scattershot delivery.

A good example of a nature film with a focus is March of the Penguins. That movie took one select group of wildlife and showed us the annual year long cycle in their lives, the good, the bad, the birth, and the death. You journeyed with them for that time period and when one of their babies froze to death, the film wasn't afraid to show you and you felt it emotionally. It was a grueling ride and you learned plenty along the way. Earth doesn't really teach so much as it simply follows. It gives you some facts here and there, but you never really gain a deep understanding of what these animals go through and why, only a basic knowledge.

The movie also doesn't always follow through on its purpose. It's a nature documentary, promising to show you the wonders of our planet, the good, the bad, and the in between, but rarely do you catch a glimpse of the darker side. Nature isn't always adorable. It's harsh and brutal, but death is mostly implied, rarely fleshed out.

The scale may seem weighed down on the negative side here, but truth be told, Earth is still a wonderful film. The only real thing it has going for it are its aesthetics, but that is its purpose and it works. It is dazzling in its beauty and delightful in its simplicity. Earth is easily recommendable.

Earth receives 4/5

The Soloist a Huge Letdown

Whoever edited the trailer to the new Robert Downey Jr./Jamie Foxx movie, The Soloist, deserves a raise. It looked stunning, perfectly edited to give the viewer a simultaneous sense of hope and awe, making it seem like a surefire Oscar contender. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the final product doesn't reflect the trailer. The Soloist is a huge disappointment, not particularly bad, but nothing worth wasting your time on.

While wandering around the streets of Los Angeles, journalist Steve Lopez (Robert Downey Jr.) runs into Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Foxx), a musician with mental problems, and finds out he used to be in Juilliard, but left for unknown reasons. Ayers now lives on the street playing a violin with only two strings despite his undeniable talents. Struggling for story ideas, Lopez decides to write a piece on Ayers. Along the way, a friendship is kindled and Lopez does anything he can to help Ayers see his potential and achieve his dream of playing music.

On paper, this story premise sounds great--a down on his luck journalist befriends a mentally ill, homeless music lover and helps him achieve greatness. What's not to like? It's a touching idea, one that people the world over should be able to appreciate. After all, music is a universal language. But it lacks the intrinsic emotion connecting the characters and viewers that most good dramas have.

Instead of playing Ayers' disease as a serious illness to be cared for, the film mostly uses it as a means for humor. At times, it treated Ayers like a spectacle rather than a human being with real problems. By doing this, it squandered the potential for real emotion.

When emotion did seep through, it felt manufactured. At one point in the movie, Ayers sits in on an orchestral rehearsal. Rather than letting me see his affection for the music, allowing for character growth and an emotional connection, the film literally became a light show, resorting to visual trickery, with flashing colors illuminating the screen. Foxx is a good enough actor to show the many emotions that would undoubtedly be flowing through this unstable man, but the filmmakers foolishly decided that gimmicks would work better. Nearly every opportunity for real dramatic tension was wasted. By the time the film actually allowed the actors to do their jobs, I no longer cared.

It's really a shame because the acting is quite good. Robert Downey Jr. is excellent as always, but Jamie Foxx deserves the most accolades. Although his character is questionably written, sometimes undeserving of sympathy and edging on the brink of psychosis, he eventually won me over with his heartfelt and realistic performance. It's one of those rare occasions where you stop seeing the actor and start seeing the character he is playing.

The Soloist is beautifully narrated through the stories Lopez is writing about Ayers, but the problem with the film isn't the story or the way it's told. It's the problematic stylistic choices and wasted dramatic opportunities that disconnect the viewer from what is unfolding onscreen. If the trailer interests you, go watch it again. You'll get more out of it.

The Soloist receives 2/5

Fight the Urge to See This Movie

A poor, but fearsome young lad living on the streets gains notoriety by working his way through an underground street fighting organization where the rules are simple: win the fight and win money, lose and go home with nothing. That just about sums up the imaginatively named Fighting. The premise is simple enough, but the end result is a catastrophe. The only fight you'll have in Fighting is the fight to stay awake.

The movie is like a NASCAR race. You spend two hours watching it move only to realize it's gone nowhere. It starts out with Channing Tatum's character selling fake products to unsuspecting buyers on the street, then fighting a few fights, and then the movie's over. Nothing happens throughout this painfully dull film. Just when you think there finally might be a conflict between characters, it wraps up and the credits begin to roll.

What's even more embarrassing is that it follows a rudimentary formula, rarely leaving the tried and true path of similar generic films, and still fails worse than many before it. Fighting is one of the worst films of the year thus far and the most unintentionally funny movie since Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li.

Granted, I'm not a fighting fan. I've never understood the fascination with watching men beat each other up, but I suppose fans of things like UFC will find something to like in this disaster. As for me, I need something more than a couple of decent fight scenes with an exciting punch or two thrown here and there.

And that is the film's biggest flaw. It plays up fighting as "cool" and it isn't. There are lots of questions you can pose here. What are the consequences of fighting in an underground street fight? What moral dilemmas would the average person deal with? But none of this is answered, or even brought up. It cares not about story or characters, but more on barbaric brawls, offering nothing in the way of intelligent deliberation.

The performances are just as terrible. Channing Tatum as the underground fighter talked like an idiot, pronouncing every "th" with a "d," as in "dis" and "dat." I guess that's so he would sound more "street," but he failed and instead sounded like a jackass. Terrence Howard is just as bad, if not worse. He's a good actor when in the right movies, but his performance here is horrendous. Apparently, if you're from Chicago, you're slow, because his accent sounded like someone who's been hit in the head a few times too many.

Fighting will appeal to the guys out there who think wearing a flat billed hat to the side with the 59fifty sticker still on it is cool. They'll eat it up. But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with a modicum of intelligence walking out of this one thinking they've seen something of quality.

Fighting receives 0.5/5

BDK and the Beard Podcast Kick Start

I've got something very exciting to share with all of you today. I've been interning on BDK's Movie Show on 106.7 WJFK for the last semester and although my internship is now over, I plan on continuing my work on his show as producer (sounds sexy). As a way to get our names out more, we are going above and beyond the call of duty and producing weekly podcasts where we breakdown each week's new film releases.

This week, we discuss the new movies, Crank: High Voltage, 17 Again and State of Play (along with a few other flicks we get sidetracked on). It's really just a means for us to get more exposure, experience and have fun. We're busy guys, so although we can't promise it, we intend to do a podcast each and every week for you lovely people to listen to.

As part of my movie reviews I do for this blog, I will also link to the WJFK website where our podcasts are, although you can also subscribe to the BDK podcasts on iTunes and hear them there. We enjoy doing them and I hope you enjoy listening to them. We're experimenting for now, so give us time and before you know it, we'll be rocking the casbah with our overwhelming amounts of awesomeness.

And don't forget to check out BDK's Movie Show every Friday night from 7-10pm on 106.7 WJFK or listen live at wjfk.com.

For now, enjoy our first podcast!
BDK and the Beard Discuss April 17th releases: State of Play, Crank: High Voltage and 17 Again.

Crank 2 Shallow and Stupid

When it comes to modern action stars, nobody stands out quite like Jason Statham. In fact, I would argue that he is the only person in Hollywood today with the brooding charisma to pull off films like Crank: High Voltage, which makes it all the sadder that the film fails to live up to expectations. Statham is a great action star and a good actor when starring in the right movie (The Bank Job), but my God, this is really bad.

The film picks up directly where Crank left off. Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) falls miles from the sky, lands on concrete and lives, only to have his heart taken out and replaced with an electronic one that needs regular jolts of electricity to keep working. So Chelios attempts to find his real heart while doing anything he can to keep his fake one ticking.

Never mind the fact that Chev's fall would have broken every bone in his body, given him irreparable brain damage, and made him a vegetable for the rest of his life, if he even managed to live. But this is Crank 2 baby. Logic need not apply. The movie is balls to the wall, but there's a huge disparity between this and others in the genre. Yes, the film is intentionally over the top and it knows it, but here's why it doesn't work. It's too self knowing.

The best over the top action flicks work because the characters aren't aware they're in a movie. For example, Clive Owen and Monica Bellucci played their parts seriously in Shoot 'Em Up and Owen delivered his lines deadpan, regardless of how stupid they were. It worked because it parodied the movies it was mimicking, which, in turn, parodied itself. Although the film was winking at the audience, the characters weren't and were fully unaware that they were in an action movie.

Yet Crank: High Voltage gets this completely wrong. It isn't parodying anything and tries too hard to be edgy instead of just letting it flow. The actors needed to play their parts straight, but instead they acted like they were in a live action cartoon.

Not all of the blame can go to the actors, however. In a sense, this is a live action cartoon. The film even resorts randomly (and stupidly) to a literal cartoon battle where the two actors are replaced by overgrown men in Halloween masks. I suspect that if you asked the filmmakers why they chose to do this, they would simply respond with a, "Why not?" The film had no structure narratively or stylistically.

The movie also attempts to be funny, with little success. This pretty much sums up the level of humor in the film. One character's name is Poon Dong. Right. And never mind the myriad of references to things like the Transporter flicks and the now infamous Wayne Brady skit from "Chappelle's Show." This movie isn't just unfunny, it's loathsomely shallow.

The final frame of the movie shows Chev Chelios walking directly to the camera until his face encompasses the screen, staring out at the audience, and flipping them the bird. It was as if the film was rubbing in my face the fact that I had just wasted precious time watching this drivel while simultaneously reminding me that it hardly even attempted to make it enjoyable to people above the age of 16. Being a fan of the first film, I was disappointed with this one and while it will certainly appeal to prepubescent high schoolers looking for stupid fun, I suspect people with taste will find a lot to hate about Crank: High Voltage.

Crank: High Voltage receives 1.5/5

17 Again--Derivative but Charming

All of us have moments we wish we could relive. Maybe a particular time in our lives was special and we just want to experience it again. Maybe we wish we would have done things differently. Even being the young 22 year old that I am, one moment in my life stands above the rest in my regret of how I handled things and I'd do anything to go back and make it right. But alas, time keeps ticking and the past is the past. But has that ever stopped Hollywood? No way. Hollywood bitch slaps time with an "Oh no he di-in't" and gives us 17 Again, a film in the same vein of flicks like 13 Going on 30 and Big.

Mike O'Donnell (Zac Efron) is the man. He's a star athlete on his way to grabbing a college basketball scholarship and he's dating the prettiest girl in school. Just before the big game where scouters will be looking for top talent, his girlfriend tells him that she is pregnant. Because of this, he makes the choice to abandon basketball, skip college and find a job to take care of her and the child. Flash forward twenty years later and the older Mike (Matthew Perry) is about to be divorced and his children hate him. After a confrontation with a janitor while reminiscing on his old high school basketball court, he finds himself to be 17 again (natch) and he uses the opportunity to make things right with his family.

17 Again is like watching your parents play sports. It's admirable in its attempt, but awkward and sloppy in its execution. At times, the film is comedically brilliant, providing some big laughs, but other times it's embarrassingly bad, having the characters resort to macho teenage tactics that create a large separation from the rest of the film. In one scene, young Mike bashes a bully to defend his son while showing off his mad skillz (with a "z" brutha) with a basketball. He spins it on his fingers, throws it between his legs and pretty much tries to act cool. But it's not cool. It's ridiculous. Standing up for your son is a good thing and could have been powerful, even moving, but the scene's wild antics became a distraction from the meaning of his words.

17 Again has moments of greatness, but then again, it also has moments of perplexity, like when Mike's daughter falls in love with his young self, even going so far as to show her rub her nose playfully with his. The movie tried to play it for laughs, but it worked more like an actual father/daughter relationship would. It was gratuitous and unsettling.

Still, at least the film knows who it's playing for. Before the title screen even pops up, Efron is already sweaty and shirtless. Eat it up ladies. But biceps do not a good performance make. Luckily, Efron is charismatic, charming, good looking, nay, gorgeous and he does a great job in the role, juggling the responsibilities of a father while trying to act like a 17 year old. He also has terrific comedic timing and I found myself laughing pretty frequently despite some questionable script decisions.

17 Again is a 50/50 deal. There are moments that are sure to entertain, but it's hard to get past the sometimes slippery script and the "been there done that" feeling. I've seen this story about thirty times before and there isn't anything in this movie that sets it apart from anything else. It features some good performances, a handful of decent laughs, a whimsical story and Zac Efron wet and shirtless. While all of those are good, there isn't enough here that makes 17 Again stand out. It's not bad. It's just not worth it.

17 Again receives 2.5/5

Intrigue and Mystery Take Center Stage in State of Play

State of Play is about ten times better than it should be. It's yet another political thriller, it features a few actors that are hit and miss in their roles and it received little marketing. I saw maybe two trailers leading up to my screening and had never heard of it before then. But it seems the movie gods have decided to be kind to this one, making it the sleeper hit of the year thus far.

State of Play works in the same vein of All the President's Men in that it follows a couple of journalists who hope to uncover a government conspiracy. This time, the journalists are Cal and Della, played by Russell Crowe and Rachel McAdams, who are investigating the mysterious circumstances around a few deaths, one of which is the mistress to Congressman Stephen Collins, played by Ben Affleck.

I could go into details, but part of the fun of State of Play is the unraveling of the mystery, so the less said, the better. Still, the story is deserving of admiration. In a genre that has been laden with incoherent stories that even the most learned people can not follow (I'm looking at you Syriana), State of Play crafts an interesting political conspiracy picture and makes it accessible to the masses. It strikes a perfect balance between smart and overbearing. It makes you think, but not so much that you spend your time scratching your head in bewilderment rather than enjoying the movie.

Adding to the impressive handling of the story are the terrific performances. Affleck, McAdams, Crowe and even Helen Mirren, in a role fit perfectly for her, conduct themselves with aplomb, diving head first into their roles and sticking with it until the very end.

But all is not well in State of Play. Perhaps the biggest knock against the film is Jason Bateman's character. Although his character is essential to the progression of the story, the way he plays him is a distraction, which is a detriment to the rest of the film. He trieds to be funny far too often, contrary to the seriousness of the plot and it didn't work. By the time he had entered the movie, I was already lost in the wonderment of mystery unfolding around me and his portrayal of the character pulled me out of the film. His performance did not work and did not hold up among the other excellent actors.

The flick also had a few awkward moments that didn't fit into the overall tone of the picture, including one where a journalist essentially becomes an action star by stealthily evading his pursuer before jumping and grabbing hold of a moving car while bullets whiz past his head, but even that was exciting, despite its ridiculousness. There were also a few liberties taken in regards to newspapers and journalism, but it mostly stayed very true to the way investigative journalists do their business, an impressive feat.

State of Play may not be the best political movie you'll ever see and it's a little rudimentary in its execution, but it's still a tightly crafted thriller that stands up to some minor scrutinies and is guaranteed to entertain.

State of Play receives 4/5

OMG! Hannah Montana!

First things first. The Hannah Montana show is hands down one of the worst programs on television. I've seen three or four episodes and they are borderline unwatchable. They work much like a train wreck does, in that you stare at it, mouth agape, shocked at the catastrophe unfolding before you. It truly is awful. But guess what? Hannah Montana: The Movie is actually pretty good. Whaddya know?

The movie follows a young girl who leads a double life, one as a normal teenage girl named Miley, her actual persona, and one as a pop music sensation named Hannah Montana, her alter ego. After an embarrassing newspaper story, her father, played by Miley's real life father, Billy Ray Cyrus, flies her out to Tennessee and refuses to let her be Hannah. He wants her to be herself for a while to see if she really knows what she wants. She meets a young stud named Travis, played by Lucas Till, and begins to realize that a simple life may not be so bad after all. By the end, she'll have to make a decision (sort of): normalcy or stardom?

There are a number of reasons why the Hannah Montana television show is so dreadful and I'm afraid I'd overload the Internet if I were to produce such a long list, but the number one reason is the acting. It's so phony, so incredibly over the top that it's shocking to think that people above a sixth grade IQ level actually enjoy it. The jokes and antics that are pulled are so mind numbing that they could very well induce you into a coma. Unfortunately, the film sometimes resorted to this style and it didn't always work. However, it's smartly more downplayed. The over the top in this film is like a Shakespearean tragedy compared to the over the top in the show.

Hannah Montana: The Movie isn't astoundingly original. The story is old hat, the jokes are overused (oh, an animal in the pants--how refreshing), but it's charming and likable, despite some cheesiness as the film wrapped up. The actors stray away from their annoying TV personalities and create what could essentially have been completely new characters. Miley Cyrus, although not perfect, showed some real acting chops in her more emotional scenes and her love interest, Lucas Till, was charming and charismatic, creating a great onscreen couple that completely took me by surprise.

Just as well, the movie was directed fantasically. It sported some beautiful shots and the director, Peter Chelsom, worked wonders with the actors. Taking a miserably unfunny group of characters from a piss poor television program and making them pleasant enough to sustain a feature length film is a miracle in its own right and I tip my hat to him.

Hannah Montana: The Movie could have been a two hour long music video and indeed, it sometimes felt like the movie was primarily being used to promote the music, which is easy to note considering that the movie poster says, "Featuring 12 Brand New Songs" right at the bottom, but it never sank that low. The songs were undeniably catchy and some even fit into the progression of the story. It was impressive, to say the least.

I do have minor quibbles with the movie, like an incredibly unfunny fight between Hannah and Tyra Banks and some eye rolling lines of dialogue ("Life's a climb, but the view's great"), but those are little divots in an otherwise smooth flick. Unfortunately, those little divots add up to form a huge gaping hole, which is essentially why my score is as low as it is. Still, the film is harmless and it was nice to see a movie for the kids that didn't feature some kind of obscene innuendo for the adults. Hannah Montana: The Movie is the biggest surprise so far this year. I can't believe I'm saying this, but consider this my recommendation.

Hannah Montana: The Movie receives 3/5

At Least It's Better Than Paul Blart

Fans of Seth Rogen be weary. Observe and Report is not your typical Rogen film. While he exuberates his usual charm into an otherwise plain character, the movie as a whole seems to be lost in translation. It's a muddled mess of loosely connected scenes strung together to form what may be the remnants of a decent story for a 22 minute television program.

Seth Rogen plays Ronnie, a mall security cop who takes his job way too seriously, even going so far as to believe he's a vital component to the stability and safety of the mall citizens. His dreary job finally becomes exciting when a naked pervert comes to town and starts to flash all of the female shoppers. Lucky for Ronnie, the flasher targeted the girl he is pining over, Brandi, played by Anna Faris, and he uses the opportunity to get closer to her and take down the flasher.

Observe and Report has the comedy aspects down pat. When it comes to producing laughter, it succeeds more often than it fails. With more than a few belly laughs and plenty more amusing antics, the movie flourished in creating the audience giggle with glee.

But jokes aren't this flick's problem. The story is a complete mess. Like a kid on a sugar bender, it's all over the place and never slows down until it crashes in the end from the constant high its been on. Unlike other Rogen films like Knocked Up and Superbad, the story here is uninteresting fodder, used only as a means for Rogen to slam down his usual shtick. While this works well for the comedic flow of the film, it doesn't help its overall quality.

Few scenes had any type of continuity to make what was happening feel sequential. Instead, it felt jumbled, like I was watching a flick where the scene placement was irrelevant, just as long as the jokes kept flowing. You could rearrange many of the scenes in the movie and it wouldn't change a thing narratively.

At first, I was enjoying myself too much to notice, but the movie doesn't take long to out itself under the weight of its own poor script. After the flasher plot is established, another plot reveals that somebody is stealing from the mall. What happens is that the film begins to ignore the flasher plot and starts to focus on the thefts, but no real conclusion is ever made. When Ronnie finally finds out who is stealing from the mall, the criminal knocks him out, flees to Mexico and is never seen again. Then it abruptly reverts back to the flasher plot. It felt like Observe and Report didn't have enough content to fill a feature length movie, so it injected an irrelevant side plot to ensure it reached an acceptable runtime.

The bottom line is that the jokes usually land, but the story is a complete waste of time. Your decision to see this movie depends on whether or not you care about a meaningful story. If you like Rogen and want to see him play a slightly different character, a clumsy, delusional goofball who pledges and honors to uphold the law rather than break it (at least for the first half of the picture), and story arc means nothing to you, then you might want to give it a go. But despite my affection for the steady flow of laughs, the disarranged story killed any chance of me recommending Observe and Report.

Bonus points for McLusky on the soundtrack though. Nice!

Observe and Report receives 2/5

Adventureland a Refreshing Comedy

What would you do if you directed one of the most popular comedies to come out of the Judd Apatow crew's think tank? Greg Mottola, director of 2007's comedy hit, Superbad, decided to follow it up with Adventureland, a lighter, more romantic coming of age story that categorizes itself as a teen sex comedy, but goes above and beyond what other films in the genre have achieved.

The movie follows James (Jesse Eisenberg), a young graduate who plans on traveling all over Europe, but finds himself in a financial crisis and is forced to work at Adventureland. There he meets a beauty named Em (Kristen Stewart) and he begins to realize that his crappy job at this amusement park may end up being the best thing that ever happens to him.

I have a theory about how Adventureland will be received by the masses. Fans of Superbad will inevitably want to see this film, although I think they will be in for a rude awakening when they find out how different it is. They will be expecting a raunchy, over the top laugh fest, but that isn't the point of Adventureland. Yes, it's a teen sex comedy, but only in the most basic sense. This film isn't simply about getting laid. Characters in movies like Superbad and American Pie were worried about losing their virginity, but Adventureland focused more on what it means to fall in love. It was a refreshing change from the now stagnant sex movies we've been bombarded with over the years.

But it isn't very funny, another criticism many fans will have. The comedy duo of Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig offered up the most laughs and there are a few chuckles here and there, but by and large, the film isn't that humorous. That's not because it fails at its attempts, but rather because the movie is more story oriented. Fans of Superbad will be disappointed, but I'll take an interesting story arc and character development over a funny, but narratively weak movie any day.

One thing Adventureland does that separates itself from other recent comedies is believable dialogue. For example, while a film like I Love You Man is funnier, the dialogue never felt realistic. The spastic fluidity of the dialogue created a separation between the film and reality, which relegated it to a good time at the movies, but nothing more. Adventureland's dialogue felt authentic and made it something much more than just another comedy. I'd be willing to revisit Adventureland again, just to spend more time with these true to life characters.

Adventureland is the best comedy of the year thus far. Just keep in mind that "best" doesn't necessarily mean "funniest." The picture isn't about constant laughs like I Love You Man and Superbad, but it has something those two don't: heart. Thanks to some great performances and a solid script, you end up really caring about these characters, so even when you aren't laughing (which is relatively often), you're still engrossed in their story. Adventureland is a wonderful surprise.

Adventureland receives 4.5/5