H2 Teaser Trailer is Pretty Strange

The teaser trailer for Rob Zombie's Halloween remake sequel H2 was released a few days ago and I'm still not sure how I completely feel about it. I was one of the few people that liked Zombie's remake of Halloween. I realize the film was incredibly flawed and, at times, just bad. However, I enjoyed a lot of Zombie's directorial decisions and the fact that he made a valiant attempt to make a film that served as a remake and his own unique vision. I felt that he tried things that most remakes don't even get close to doing and I enjoyed that. 

When I heard that Zombie was making a sequel to this remake, I was pretty surprised and not exactly excited. I felt that a sequel would really damage the ending of the first film (which was one of my favorite aspects of it) and, to be honest, kind of ruin the purpose behind that movie. Still, I decided just to go with it and see what Zombie came up with.

From all reports (and watching the teaser trailer), H2 is looking to be a very different film. Michael Myers will be mask-less for most of the movie and, at one point, he will pick up a new mask as opposed to his classic blank, all-white mask. The other thing that is odd about this movie is that Zombie seems to be bringing in a supernatural element into the film. I cannot tell you how taken back I was when I saw Sherri Moon Zombie dressed up as this strange goth, white angel figure telling Michael to kill for her. I didn't see that coming at all. A lot of people are pretty pissed off about this aspect of the film right now but I'm sure Zombie was expecting that. He seems to be saying "F*ck the cannon" with this one and just doing whatever he wants with the film. This may or may not be a good thing. One thing is for sure: this will be a straight-up Rob Zombie film with no remake limitations. Yeah, the hospital setting from the original Halloween 2 is present but that seems to be it from that film. I don't know if it will all amount to a good movie. It could be a complete and utter train wreck. However, I have to say I'm interested to see what comes out of it. This trailer is bizarre but it left me very intrigued to say the least.

Watch the teaser trailer below.

Source: Trailer Addict

Speech of the Week #34

Hey guys, welcome to a column here on YDKS Movies entitled Speech of the Week! For now on, every week I will post a new scene from a movie that features a speech of some sort being given. After all, there are a lot of famous scenes in film where characters give an influential speech of some sort. Then again, there are also a lot of scenes where characters give a speech and it just comes off cheesy and lame. In this section, you will see both kinds. That's right, people, I'm giving you the good and bad of film speeches all wrapped up in one great big package. I hope you all enjoy.

This is one of the best. Why? Well, I'll tell you:

- Sam Jackson

- Sam Jackson yelling

- Quentin Tarantino

- Methods of breaking concentration

- The importance of appearances

- The importance of the English language

- What?

- The Bible

- That golden flare that pops up when they shoot 

- It's Pulp Fiction

Enjoy.

Films or Moving Comic Books?: An Essay

I've been looking through a bunch of old papers for my Senior Seminar class lately (as I have to have five distinctly different papers for my final portfolio and two complete revisions). In the process, I have been reading some of my old papers for Intro to Film and Literature and Film. I'm actually pretty fond of some of these papers and feel like I did a pretty decent job of analyzing various film related topics. One of my favorite papers was on Ghost World and the idea of what makes a perfect film adaptation of a piece of literature (particularly a graphic novel). In this essay, I compare Ghost World to Sin City and try to figure out just what makes the ideal adaptation for this kind of source material. The concept of an ideal or perfect adaptation has been one I've been struggling with for the past year or so. My Final Senior Seminar paper deals with the concept, my Final Group Project dealt with it, and my Honors paper is going to be dealing with it as well. I see this essay as really the first time I began to really think about this problem and struggle with it as a whole. I do not think that there is an ideal answer to the question but I still enjoy attacking the subject from all areas.

Anyways, below I present you one of my essays. I hope that you enjoy it.

----------------------- 

Ghost World and Other Graphic Novel Adaptations: Films or Moving Comic Books?

An Essay By:

Wesley Caldwell

In 2001, Terry Zwigoff, director of the acclaimed 1994 independent film documentary Crumb, released Ghost World. The film was based on Daniel Clowes’s cult graphic novel of the same name, following the misadventures of Enid and her lack of connection with the world around her. Although the film adaptation was highly successful among critics, it did not make its budget back through the box office and was considered a failure. However, as the years have gone by, the film has become immensely successful on DVD and has found its audience. With its release in 2001, Ghost World became a precursor to an influx of graphic novel adaptations to film. The trend began to take off with the movie that I, as an avid graphic novel reader, had been looking forward to: Robert Rodriguez’s successful 2005 adaptation of Frank Miller’s noir graphic novel saga, Sin City. In 2007, director Zack Snyder’s testosterone-filled adaptation of another Frank Miller graphic novel called 300 hit box office gold with $70 million in the bank on its first weekend alone. As graphic novel adaptations continue to become more popular in Hollywood, the method of filming them is advancing and changing quite drastically. Unlike Zwigoff’s Ghost World or Sam Mendes’ 2003 adaptation of Road to Perdition, these newer graphic novel adaptations are being filmed as frame-by-frame adaptations. The result is something that feels like an actual moving comic book. With this new dedication to the style of the original graphic novels, film adaptations of these works are becoming less like traditional films. There could be a downside to this type of filmmaking. Despite newer, stylistic graphic novel adaptations being incredibly faithful to their source material, they are becoming less like flowing, cinematic pieces such as Ghost World and more like artificial, moving comic books in the vein of Sin City.

Unlike the more recent graphic novel adaptations, Zwigoff’s Ghost World feels like the average movie going experience. There is nothing unusual about Affonso Beato’s cinematography or the way that Zwigoff chooses to shoot his sequences or set his framing. Average moviegoers could watch it, identify with its story, and not even know that it was a graphic novel adaptation (of course, this is if they do not read the credit at the beginning of the film stating this). Nothing about the colorful visual style of the film echoes Clowes’ original minimalist black and white artwork. Nothing in the film makes it stand out as a moving comic book. Most of the focus of the film is not even in the original graphic novel. While it may be surprising to the unsuspecting viewer, Enid never even has a relationship (as a friend or lover) with Seymour in the graphic novel. Still, despite a lack of faithfulness to the original style and plot of the graphic novel, Zwigoff still manages to make a film that captures the heart and feel of its source material. It’s still Ghost World. It is still awkward, offbeat, and filled with a serious contemplation on how someone fits into a world that they cannot identify with. 

Much of this can be recognized in many sequences in the film. One sequence that particularly stands out is when Enid visits Rebecca as she works in Starbucks. The scene starts with a close up on Enid’s face, which is covered with a Batgirl-like mask from Anthony’s sex shop. Just this image alone incites laughter from the audience and gives a sense of the graphic novel’s quirky and obscure humor. This type of humor is expanded upon with annoying customers such as the strange, trivia game player in the wheel chair and the woman who refuses to have anything with her coffee. Zwigoff also manages to get the serious nature of the film across in this scene by having a jaded Rebecca ask Enid when she is going to get a job. Enid’s vague responses to this question begin to point the fact that she is not going to get one.  This scene seems to begin to point out the rift that is beginning to form in Enid and Rebecca’s relationship. This is evident not only with this conversation but also with their positioning in the frame. Enid stands wearing her Batgirl mask on the customer side of the counter as Rebecca wears her Starbucks uniform on the worker’s side of the counter. They are already separated and living in two worlds: Enid in her quirky, slacker world and Rebecca in the real world of working for a living.

On the other side of the spectrum, Robert Rodriguez’s adaptation of Frank Miller’s Sin City was anything but the average movie going experience. The entire film was shot in front of a green screen background in the garage of Rodriguez’s Austin, Texas home. Due to this, the cinematic experience involves the viewer in a completely digital world. It literally feels as if the viewer was shot directly into the pages of one of Miller’s graphic novels. By filming completely against a green screen background, Rodriguez is able to devote his mise en scene completely to the original pages of Miller’s graphic novel. When looking at the film and then the original source, one can see how the film is literary a frame-by-frame adaptation. Unlike like Zwigoff’s film of Ghost World where Clowes’ original black and white style was ignored, Rodriguez embraces Miller’s stark black and white artwork, enhancing it and making it as surreal as it appears in the graphic novel. He manages to create a completely digital world devoted to the original source material, making the film going experience feel like the viewer is watching a moving comic book. However, unlike Zwigoff’s adaptation of Ghost World, this may come with problems. Although he sacrificed many plot and style elements of the original novel, Zwigoff was still able to get across the heart, soul, and feel of the story. Rodriguez’s adaptation definitely maintains the feel of Miller’s original graphic novel, but it managed to leave some filmgoers cold. Many critics stated that Rodriguez’s commitment to Miller’s surreal graphic novel world and a lack of a strong human factor made it hard to be pulled into the story emotionally. Also, with the absolute commitment to the original graphic novel format, much of the movie does not flow like a typical film, causing a further feeling of detachment from the work. Some of the transitions between shots seem awkward and clumsy, something that is not the same when one reads them on a graphic novel page.

An example of the perks and flaws of this type of filmmaking is obvious in the first scene of the film. Based on a short Sin City yarn entitled The Customer is Always Right, the scene displays Josh Harnett as a hit man hired by a troubled woman to give her a good evening before ending her life. The scene is shot frame-by-frame from the original short graphic novel story. However, Rodriguez uses color as a weapon, giving the woman a vibrant red dress and lipstick against the dreary black and white surroundings. As Hartnett’s character lights the woman’s cigarette, he describes her beautiful eyes. When he does this and lights her up, her black and white eyes spring to life, giving off a gorgeous, haunting green glow. As the two characters share a kiss, their figures become a completely white silhouette against the dark city skyline while white rain falls around them. The mise en scene of this shot is that completely of the original graphic novel frame. As the two characters break from their kiss, they are black and white again, no longer a completely white silhouette. The transition between the two shots does not make sense in the traditional film sense. It is not smooth or completely logical. However, in a graphic novel world, it makes perfect sense. Still, one could see how this type of filmmaking could be jarring and isolating to certain viewers not familiar with the original work. To fans of the graphic novels, however, it can appear to be cinematic bliss.

What is the best way for a graphic novel to be adapted into film? Should a film be a separate entity that maintains the heart and feel of its original source but not necessarily all the story elements and style? Each of these methods has their advantages. While Zwigoff sacrificed much of Clowes’ original story and style, he still managed to create a powerful and heartfelt film that captured the atmosphere of the original source material. On the other hand, Rodriguez created a completely faithful adaptation of Miller’s original story and created a completely revolutionary and unique film experience that isolated many viewers in various ways. Zack Synder’s 2007 adaptation of Miller’s 300 was made in similar ways and caught much of the same, if not stronger, criticism. In the end, there may not be a right answer to this question. However, if a talented, well-meaning director is behind the project, the method usually matters very little. It will be a great film. 

Speech of the Week #33

Hey guys, welcome to a column here on YDKS Movies entitled Speech of the Week! For now on, every week I will post a new scene from a movie that features a speech of some sort being given. After all, there are a lot of famous scenes in film where characters give an influential speech of some sort. Then again, there are also a lot of scenes where characters give a speech and it just comes off cheesy and lame. In this section, you will see both kinds. That's right, people, I'm giving you the good and bad of film speeches all wrapped up in one great big package. I hope you all enjoy.

Okay. It's been over a month since the last Speech of the Week. Can you all believe that? One month. You must have thought this article was dead. Well, prepare to be disappointed. And I've had a "good" one stored up for the comeback.

Who ever thought up Red Dawn is a freaking genius. The plot? It's the 1980's. Cold War tensions are running high. In the midst of all this, Russians parachute into a small Colorado town and begin killing everyone. And I mean everyone. I'm talking like they go into a school and just start firing. Why do they take a random, small Colorado town? I still can't tell you. They talk about it being strategic but it still sounds stupid to me.

Anyways, all is looking hopeless until a group of teenagers ban together in the woods and form a rebel group named "The Wolverines." The Wolverines then proceed to kill a crap load of Russians before being mostly wiped out themselves.

Did I mention that actors such as Patrick Swayze, Charlie Sheen and C. Thomas Howell lead the Wolverines? Well, they freaking do. And it's all very 80's and very freaking awesome.

Really, I could go on and on about Red Dawn. The movie reeks of 1980's paranoia and cheese. The fact that this was what many people thought was actually going to happen in the Cold War is kind of ridiculous and a little bit funny. I actually think I may do a big article on this movie once I get out of school and have a little bit more time on my hands (which I have none of at the moment). Anyways... back to the point of this article...

My all-time favorite scene (and trust me, I have a lot of favorite scenes in this movie) in Red Dawn is the scene where Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen visit their dad (played by the awesome Harry Dean Stanton) in a concentration camp the Russians have set up at the local drive-in (I know-- just go with it). I know this scene is supposed to be serious but I just can't help but break down in complete laughter every time I see it. It just kills me. My friend Evan from high school was quite fond of this scene too and we would quote it often. I like to think that it was one of the strong holds of our friendship.

Anyways, a couple of hilarious things happen in this scene:

1) The dad makes the boys promise him they they won't cry for him anymore. They totally break this strange promise later in the movie.

2) Patrick Swayze delivers the line, "Daddy, I love you," while blubbering like a little baby. This is the line that usually cracks me up and the one I quote with Evan the most. I know it's not supposed to be funny. I know it shouldn't be funny. But, dang it... it really is. I don't know if it's because Swayze's crying the way he is or his delivery... I... just... can't.... not... laugh...

3) As the boys leave, the dad dramatically cries out, "BOYS, AVENGE ME!! AVVVVEEENNNGEEE MEEEE!!!" Much like their last promise, they don't really do this either. This line is pretty infamous and is absolutely hilarious. It's actually been parodied by South Park before.

Anyways, I hope you all enjoy this scene. It's not a straight-up, tradition speech but I felt it was close enough. Plus, it's freaking Red Dawn. 

A Review of Observe and Report

I really like dark comedies. I'm not easily offended (life's too short) and I like to being pushed morally by films. Out of all the dark comedies I've seen over the years, Observe and Report is not the darkest I've ever seen (that title belongs to Todd Solondz's Happiness, which you can see my previous article on here) but it is definitely on up there. It's been a day or so since I've seen Observe and Report and I feel like I've needed that time to really run this film through my head to come up with a definite view point on how I feel about it. In that amount of time, I have decided that while Observe and Report isn't a great movie or really an enjoyable one by any means, I did appreciate the attempt it made at being a purposefully dark and difficult piece of cinema in a time period where films like Fast and Furious are breaking box office records. 

As far as a being a good film goes, Observe and Report definitely falls short at times. The film is very inconsistent and awkward in its pacing and direction. I was very torn on how I felt about Jody Hill's take on his own script. Many times, it felt like he was going for a certain tone and other times a completely different one. He often shifts from a serious, Taxi Driver-esque feeling to a scene of slap stick comedy. The film's tone is all over the place and it just makes the pace of the whole thing feel sloppy. Scenes often don't feel right next to each other and the transitions between them are awkward and clunky. I've heard that Hill wanted the jumpy pace of the film to mirror the bipolar state of Ronnie Barnhardt's mind. I think that is a very interesting concept but the fact remains that it makes the film a little more flawed than it already is. The first half of the film really suffers from these pacing problems but it definitely gets a little better as it continues on. The fact that Hill is attempting a dark comedy is not the reason that I am unhappy with the mixture of serious elements and comedy. I just feel like a consistent tone was never truly established. You can have a dark comedy that feels like a whole, unified vision (see Bad Santa as a great example of this; I know many see this film as a Billy Bob Thorton vehicle but it's probably my favorite dark comedy). 

Along with having pacing and direction problems, Observe and Report also suffers from just not being very enjoyable at times. Like I said, I'm not easily offended and I enjoy my fair share of dark comedy but it was just hard for me to really care about any of the characters in this movie. Other than Ronnie, no one is really developed much for one to really attach themselves to them. When they are developed, they turn out to be mostly terrible people. Since Ronnie is a pretty hard person to like (though I did sympathize with him at certain times), it's tough to stick with the movie. 

Still, I found a lot of things in this movie to like. With the except of Michael Pena, the cast in this movie is pretty solid. Seth Rogen does a great job as Ronnie Barnhardt. He manages to make the character power hungry, bipolar, obsessive, self-destructive, delusional, pathetic and dangerous all at the same time. However, he never overdoes it and really manages to be surprisingly subtle. There are times where Rogen is able to really tell a story just with his blank stare. His psychiatric evaluation scene was pretty amazing and kind of terrifying. Anna Faris also does a great job at making the character of Brandi one of the most unlikable characters to grace the screen in some time. Her date with Rogen is one of the most awkward and disgusting things I've seen in a while. Ray Liotta is awesome (which is no surprise) as Detective Harrison, the rival of Ronnie. I really enjoyed the scene where he snapped on Ronnie in the mall manager's office. Collette Wolfe is great as Nell, the only really likable character in the entire film. I have to say that I loved Danny McBride's cameo and the entire scene that it occurred it. It was one of the times where I really felt that Hill really nailed the dark comedy tone of the film. I just wish he had managed to keep that tone through the entire film. The only cast member I had a problem with would be Michael Pena as Dennis. I didn't buy the lisp for one second and I just felt that the performance was kind of annoying and a little bit embarrassing (since Pena is actually a great actor).

Although I wouldn't say that I really enjoyed the movie completely, I would say that a lot of it was still really funny. I don't think that there was a five minute span that occurred without me laughing. Most of the laughs came from the fact that the movie was as messed up as it was. Plus they just had some really great lines here and there (the line about Chick-fil-a was classic and had me in pain). Although I don't think it fit well in the tone of the rest of the film (again, a common complaint from me in this review), the sequence with Ronnie and Dennis becoming friends was really funny to me just because it was so ridiculous and insane. However, for me and most people, the last half of the movie was definitely the highlight of the film's comedy. I won't give anything away but the last fifteen minutes of this movie is absolutely insane. I loved the Oldboy and The Dark Knight nods they did in one sequence and the shocking ending to another sequence (the audience exploded in laughter and gasps). I was so entertained and kind of floored by ballsy nature of the last fifteen minutes that I would say that it probably made me respect the movie much more than I originally had. 

Observe and Report is a hard movie to review. It's the kind of comedy that definitely does not come around very often. It is rare that you will see a movie that showcases such crassness, full frontal male nudity, foulness, dark human observations and truly messed up comedy bits (who knew date rape was funny?). In a sense, I feel like I kind of have to respect it just for going out as far as it did and in the completely non-apologetic manner that it did so. However, just because Observe and Report is an anti-mainstream piece cinema doesn't mean it is a good movie. The fact is that this movie is plagued with bad pacing, confused direction, a haphazard tone and is, at times, hard to enjoy. Still, if you're not easily offended and have a good sense of humor, it's got some great laughs, an insane ending and a great performance by Rogen.

6/10

A Review of the Parks and Recreation Pilot

I'm a really big fan of The Office. When I saw that Greg Daniels (creator of the U.S. version of The Office) had a new series coming out on NBC following the same style, I was intrigued but also a little weary. Was it going to be the same as The Office but with just a different cast? Was its dependence on the same style and kind of humor going to make it just a pale imitation? With talent such as Amy Poehler, Rashida Jones and Aziz Ansari involved, I figured it had to be at least entertaining. Right?

Well, as it turns out, the pilot episode for Parks and Recreation was pretty unwatchable. I started watching it this past Thursday night with my friends Zach and Caleb. We watched it though the first commerical break and then for a few more minutes. Finally, Caleb asked, "Do you guys mind if we stop? Does anyone wanna keep watching?" We agreed to just watch something else. Until that point (which was a good ten minutes into the show), none of us had laughed once.

To be fair and write a balanced review, I got on Hulu yesterday and watched the entire episode (including the first ten minutes that I had already suffered through once). Luckily for me, the episode did actually get a little better after the point on which we turned it off. Still, it did not get good enough for me to really enjoy it, find it funny or give it a good review.

I'm not sure why this show was so bad. It's just not funny in any way. The only line that made me chuckle a little was when the guy in the meeting started to say, "And now a little bit about Laura Linney," and that's just because it's really random. It almost feels like they're trying too hard to be funny and it just completely falls flat every time. Amy Poehler feels awkward and out of place. Like everyone else in the show, she isn't given very good material to deal with and that is a shame because she can be funny given the right project. Everything she does feels forced. I really liked Rashida Jones from her runs on The Office and Boston Public (did any one else watch this show? I'd kill for the DVDs to be released) but she really isn't given much to do here. Much like Poehler, Ansari really feels off. I don't know if it was the way his character was written or if he was just trying too hard. 

Basically, the entire show feels forced. 

As the show went on, I did find myself liking Paul Schneider's character. His scene with Poehler outside was actually kind of pleasant and I liked what he did for her character towards the end. Other than this, I didn't really find much to like about this show. This is a shame because I really like everyone involved. It may be premature to judge the show this harshly as it was just a pilot but even The Office pilot (which many people see as the worst episode of the series) was still pretty funny and set a good tone for the series. If this is what the show is going to be like, I don't want to watch the rest of it. Parks and Recreation relies too much on the same formula and style of The Office but it lacks the same warmth, great characters, emotion, hilarity and overall heart. As far as I'm concerned, it is as forced and artificial as a show can be at this point.

2/10

Feel free to watch the Pilot episode below and see if you agree with me. I wouldn't recommend it though.

Video Source: Hulu

A Review of Adventureland

Back in 2007, Greg Mottola’s Superbad came out to pretty good reviews and a solid box office return. Despite the film being quite enjoyable (and funny), nothing about Mottola’s direction really stood out. He did not write the movie and was essentially a director for hire by producer Judd Apatow (who had worked with Mottola on his short-lived television series Undeclared). Little did most people know that, when he made Superbad, Mottola already had the screenplay for Adventureland written. However, due to script’s personal and more downtrodden nature, Mottola had to get a hit made before he could direct it.

With a big box office return for Superbad in check, Mottola was given free reign to make his passion project. Despite the fact that Adventureland is being sold as just another teen-sex comedy, it is the farthest thing from it. In fact, I would almost consider it a teen-age drama with comedic elements. From the first frame, one can tell that this is something that has been rattling around in Mottola’s head for quite some time. Everything in the movie feels personal, genuine, and realistic. Nothing ever seems forced or out of place. And I loved it for that.

It’s really hard to explain why I loved this movie so much. It just has this feeling to it that’s hard to describe. It’s nostalgic, sweet, heartbreaking, funny, awkward, charming and believable. Although I haven’t necessarily been in all the situations in the film, I could identify and sympathize with the characters as they went through them. Strangely, there were times where I felt like I had been there myself.

Everyone was cast perfectly in this movie. Jesse Eisenberg was great as James. Eisenberg was awkward, innocent and charming all at the same time. I felt like I had been in James’ shoes many times before and Eisenberg's portrayal has a lot to do with that. Eisenberg really sold the character from the first time he stepped on screen. I knew he was going to be great the moment I saw that look on his face in the first shot of the movie. I’ve heard people be mixed on Kristen Stewart as Em but I really liked what she did. I felt that all of her actions were genuine and that her character was appropriately complex. She’s hard to like all of the time but that’s kind of the point. Still, unlike Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of Daisy in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, I could actually sympathize with Em and understood why she was self-destructive (where as Daisy was just a bitch to be bitch). Martin Starr is great as Joel, the awkward and incredibly sexually frustrated friend of James. I’ve been a fan of Starr since Freaks and Geeks and never has he really been given a chance to show his acting chops until this film. I felt that he really did a great job at being funny and still getting some solid emotions from the crowd. His proposal to go see a “shitty movie” killed me. I thought Ryan Reynolds was great as Connell, the park maintenance man. I felt that he had an appropriate mixture of sleaziness and strange charisma. Even though he is a very unlikable character, he still manages to be somewhat sympathetic. Lastly, Bill Hader and Kristen Wigg have great chemistry as the sheltered, odd couple that runs the amusement park. Hader’s moment with a baseball bat was one of the funniest things I’ve seen in quite some time.

I loved Mottola’s direction on this film. Whenever someone makes a movie that is very personal and close to them and their private lives, you can usually feel it in their direction. I definitely felt it in Mottola’s in this movie. Every shot had a certain energy and passion to it. Each composition felt like it was carefully composed. It’s not very often that you see a comedy and feel like the director behind it truly had a vision. Adventureland is an exception. Mottola really is able to capture a feeling in this movie that is hard to capture. He captures the excitement of falling in love. That may not seem hard to the layman but he captures it and doesn’t make it feel Hollywood or forced. Everything feels real. There aren’t many movies you’ll see where two characters share a car ride with no words said while the Velvet Underground’s “Pale Blue Eyes” plays in the background. As this occurs, Mottola balances between lights bouncing off of the windows and extreme close-ups of the two teens. In a sense, nothing is happening. But it’s perfect. I’ve been in that car before. I’ve had that feeling of awkwardness, of feeling alive and of being in love and not being able to say anything about it. It is perfect. Add to all that a great capturing of 1980’s nostalgia and an amazing soundtrack and you have rare film that is just about perfect.

The only thing that I remotely had a problem with in this movie was the ending. Now, don’t get me wrong: it’s not a bad ending by any means. However, as the movie keep rolling on before me, I began to realize that it may be hard to end this film satisfyingly. What Mottola went with was audience pleasing and, while I didn’t find it mawkish in any way, it did not feel as genuine as the rest of the movie. Still, I would only consider this a minor complaint.

I really loved Adventureland. It was really funny, emotional and just incredibly enjoyable to watch. When I wasn’t laughing from the clever humor being presented to me (think the polar opposite of Superbad’s foulness), I was emotionally engaged in the complicated love story being presented to me. Everything about this movie is incredibly well done. The cast is great, the direction is well thought-out and personal, the soundtrack is amazing and the story is well crafted. It’s a movie that’s nowhere no as commercial or easy to take as Superbad but that’s what I loved about it. At times, it’s a heart breaking film to watch. At other times, it’s pretty charming and hilarious. But the bottom line is this: in the end, it’s just a really good movie.

9/10

Watch Bags and Boards: Episode I

Click here to see it in Full HD.

This is episode one of my web series Bags and Boards that I am making. This thing has been the primary reason I haven't been able to post on here as much as usual. I had the MC Film Festival this past Monday night (we tied for first with Thomas Webb's The Dorm) and, for the rest of the week, I've been working on creating the Bags and Boards website, converting the movie file and uploading it to Vimeo. Oh yeah, that and doing school work (well kinda doing school work).

For those unfamiliar, Bags and Boards is a web series created by myself, Austin Caldwell, Jay Long and Dale Griffin. It follows the lives of a group of comic book store workers as they struggle with the daily grind, strange and unruly customers, love and hard economic times. 

In this first episode entitled the "The Dark Knight", Clark argues the merits of The Dark Knight and other comic book movies with a customer, Steven takes interest in an attractive female customer and Bruce and Brenningworth contemplate stealing an expensive Boba Fett helmet.

I'm really happy with the way this episode turned out and I cannot wait to make the rest of the first Season of the show (I'm writing and planning episode II as I type this). I hope you all enjoy it as much as I have.

For more information on Bags and Boards, updates, behind the scenes coverage and an episode archive, go to Bags and Boards.org. Obviously, there isn't much on there right now but there will be in the next month or so.

Sources: Vimeo, Bags and Boards.org