"Adventureland"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“Adventureland” is a well-executed, perfectly idyllic summer camp romance. Its style is as distinctive as it is attractive. Both funny and touching, “Adventureland” is without a doubt one of the best movies of the year.

James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) is a geeky-cool kid fresh out of college in the mid-1980s. Like most of his friends, James has enjoyed a life of relative comfort and privilege—his biggest challenge being the opposite sex. James’ future is falling into place, as he prepares to conquer graduate school and then the world.

Much to his chagrin, James’ bubble is burst when his plans for a European vacation and enrollment at Columbia graduate school are put on hold with his parents’ announcement that they can no longer afford James’ lifestyle. Instead of bouncing around Europe with wine in one hand and Hemmingway in the other, James is forced to do something he has never done before: enter the job market.

With no work experience and no leads, James plight becomes nightmarish as his options dwindle. Instead of working at some swanky corporation reflective of his intelligence, James must settle for a job at Adventureland, a hokey, cheesy local carnival. James mans the games section, meting out cheap stuffed animals to obnoxious ring tossers while listening to an endless play list of bad pop music.

Adjustment is no easy task for James. During his very first day on the job, James is robbed of a giant, stuffed panda bear. Luckily he is rescued by Em Lewin (Kristen Stewart), a fellow worker at Adventureland. Em quickly catches James’ eye while she shows him the ropes. The work remains demeaning, but James finds a cast of close friends like Em who share both James’ interests and his attitudes. This booze-drinking, pot-smoking crowd floats through life shaking their fists at adults with ironic gestures and savvy smiles. Life at Adventureland becomes the perfect summer fling with a healthy mix of groans and grins. Solidarity springs from misery.

It is not long before James falls in love with Em, who is dark, cool and perhaps even more ironic in her disposition than James. The pair is absolutely perfect for each other, and their friendship evolves naturally into a carefree romance. But while Adventureland provides an alternate universe perfect for nurturing the budding love, Em is troubled by stress at home and elsewhere. She feels trapped in a home full of phonies and hopelessly caught up in a lingering relationship with a married man.

James and Em are intoxicating characters and easy to root for. Amidst the waning summer days, the kind of drama that begs to be overcome threatens their relationship and the unity of the gang formed in the plywood booths of Adventureland. This cotton candy hell becomes the stomping ground for this pack of smart aleck twenty-somethings united by their miserable vocation and their youthful disdain for all things boring.

“Adventureland” is wonderfully written and acted. Jesse Eisenberg is enjoyably clever and Kristen Stewart flawlessly portrays the elusive summer beauty. This film celebrates youth without glorifying immaturity … well, for the most part. “Adventureland” clearly differs from superficial summer romps while also avoiding taking itself too seriously. It beautifully, almost painfully, captures that golden time in life just before responsibility becomes a mainstay. This deeply nostalgic movie has a distinctive retro style perfect for portraying the summers when bad decisions were not so bad; with characters who care about the right things yet aren’t afraid to act their age.

In addition to Eisenberg and Stewart, Matt Bush, Martin Starr and Bill Hader are hilarious and enriching. The subtle and smart humor of this movie fits its style. The characters are goofy but have good heads on their shoulders. They are screw-ups but destined for success. Thus, it is easy to love this cast. With summer just a few weeks away, “Adventureland” is the perfect way to celebrate the season.

"Watchmen"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Rich, complex novels often make for terrible films. The subtle detail that turns pages can zoom by at 24 frames per second. Unfortunately, “Watchmen” is one of those movies. Instead of wowing the audience with the action and drama expected from a superhero flick, this film meanders and lags. “Watchmen” is a prelude; a labyrinth plot that never becomes a story.

The time is the mid-1980s. The place is New York City. President Richard Nixon is surviving his fifth term in the White House, trying to avoid the annihilation of the human race threatened by an impending nuclear war with Russia. The Watchmen are a band of retired crime fighters, once credited with keeping America safe, but forced out of service by a no-mask law instituted by Nixon. For the most part, these heroes lack extraordinary superpowers; they are talented, but mere citizens with socially conscious parents. There is the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), for example, who is a brash, satirical cowboy who, in his day, blurred the line between hero and villain. Or there is the Night Owl (Patrick Wilson), who is a batmanesque avenger with a soft heart but hard fists.

New York is becoming a haven for criminals and America is heading for nuclear war, but these vigilantes have nothing to do but drink beer and reminisce about the good old days. But when The Comedian is suddenly and viciously murdered, the Watchmen’s interest is aroused. While the impulse to act remains, the retired avengers have grown comfortable and complacent in their normal, everyday lives. Yet, just when the ever-mounting threat of perpetual violence rises to a crescendo, the heroes of yore decide to don the masks once again in the name of justice.

The plot thickens and the superheroes divide their time between cleaning up the streets, discovering the identity of the culprit behind the Comedian’s murder, and preventing a nuclear holocaust. As is to be expected with a mass of apparently unsolvable superhero problems, the issues are inextricably linked. Now back in action, the Watchmen must search their souls to determine their true place in the world, and to decide where their loyalties lie. While each character has his or her own impulses, each must weigh the value of peace on the one hand, and justice on the other. Are the true heroes those who make the world a better place by any means, or those who do the right thing no matter how much bloodshed ensues?

“Watchmen” is two hours and 43 minutes long. The first two hours is a preamble to a story that never develops. The next 20 minutes are a chaotic but stimulating distraction, and the final 20 minutes … well, who cares? Amid the constellation of political jabs and intellectual quips, there are rather few eye-catching moments and even fewer interesting developments. The feigned intellect of the otherworldly Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) (who sighs, “If only you experienced time as I do”) and the ridiculous, plastic hair of Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) are merely obnoxious stabs at creating flamboyant superstars. That is, these superheroes are not campy; they are just downright cheesy.

The graphic novel upon which this movie is based is a classic, but the movie is highly forgettable. If the so-called intrigue contained in each character was developed individually into movies called “Dr. Manhattan” or “Ozymandias”, there might be something worth seeing. That is, divide and conquer may have been a better strategy for director Zack Snyder. At it is, “Watchmen” is a slapdash mishmash of nonsense. What’s worse, it is almost three hours worth of nonsense.

"The Wrestler"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Method acting is a technique whereby an actor or actress fully embraces the lifestyle, emotions and characteristics of the person being portrayed on screen. Whether or not this was the technique previously employed by the estranged Mickey Rourke, the process of getting inside the mind of Randy “The Ram” Robinson—a washed-up, beat-up, screwed-up old wrestler—may have been more self-reflective than self-emptying. Rourke and the Ram attempt to simultaneously resurrect their careers in “The Wrestler,” a powerfully emotional and subtly profound look at aging, redemption and salvation.

In the world of professional wrestling—the kind with folding chairs and body slams, not the kind with headgear and grappling—the Ram was once a god. He was the people’s champion, defeating such frightening and evil opponents as the “Ayatollah.” In the minds of his fans, the Ram defended the ring, the American homeland and all that is sacred.

However, with age and experience come aches, pains and a restless constituency. Once on top of the world, the Ram is relegated to high school performances and backroom shows, testing his patience, wallet and ego. Whereas before the Ram’s successes appeared to outweigh his failures, he is now confronted with all the mistakes he made during those years; mistakes for which he is now accountable. Among them is his forgotten and neglected daughter Stephanie (Evan Rachel Wood), who wants nothing to do with her father after years of missed birthdays.

The Ram—now merely ‘Randy’—clings to the comfort and advice of an aging stripper named Cassidy (Marisa Tomei), with whom Randy has fallen in love. However, Cassidy has her own world of hurt and responsibility to reckon with—a world analogous to Randy’s—and is reluctant to team up with her long-time, bruised and broken customer.

Amidst the social chaos, Randy suffers a life-threatening and career-ending heart attack, leaving him more impotent and broken than before. As Randy struggles to regain the affection of his daughter and the love of Cassidy, he fights the dangerous desire to return to the world of wrestling—the only audience suitable for Randy’s talents.

Although the apparent drama in “The Wrestler” is in no short supply, perhaps the most interesting thread of the film is covert religious imagery that underpins the entire film. The audience is starkly introduced to this theme when, after Randy tells Cassidy about his injuries, she flatly quotes the Bible: “He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.” An injury to his side and a tattoo of Jesus on his back further establish the presence of this allegory between Christ and the “sacrificial Ram.”

Yet, this is no Sunday school allegory. The Ram is hardly perfect, and although he has a strong sense of responsibility and the need to make everything right, the Ram constantly comes up short. He is unable to provide for the needs of those closest to him, and he is never present when his presence is most needed. Instead, the Ram’s whole life and career is nothing more than a childish sham, where a certain ideology is praised and worshiped without reflection. Although it seems as if the Ram’s tenure is ending, the tired wrestler declares to his fans, “The only one that's going to tell me when I'm through doing my thing is you people here.” In response, an arena full of followers applauds with religious zeal.

Religion aside, it is not difficult to empathize with the Ram. Although he is worshipped in certain settings, Randy is deeply human. He wants to do what is right and even provide something greater to those who love him, but he is simply incapable of keeping up with the past and future. Although his responsibilities multiply, Randy turns to the only world that appreciates him.

This movie is raw and gritty. Rourke certainly rises to the demands of this performance and Tomei adds a good deal to the film. “The Wrestler” has something for everyone: streams of interpersonal drama as well as deeper undercurrents.

“The Wrestler” is rated R for violence, sexuality/nudity, language and some drug use.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Both mysterious and tragic, Benjamin Button was born old and died
young. "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," starring Brad Pitt and
Cate Blanchett, apes the dancing historical plot of "Forrest Gump" but
lacks nearly all of Gump's heart, sympathy and profundity. Star power
could not rescue this mundane three-hour marathon, making Pitt's
caked-on makeup the most interesting aspect of the film.

The unfortunate Benjamin Button (Brad Pitt) was born in New Orleans
amidst cries of victory after the close of World War I. Like a normal
baby, Button possessed a meager stature and fragile frame. However,
the weakness shrouding Button's body was not the softness of youth but
instead was the worn muscles and calcified bones of old age. Instead
of smooth, delicate skin, Button's baby face looked more like an old
catcher's mitt.

With his mother dead and his father unwilling to raise him, Button is
appropriately abandoned on the doorstep of an old folks' home. The
owner, Mrs. Baker (Faune Chambers), and the aging residents of the
home take to the abnormal child as if he were one of their own.
Although the residents do not realize Button is younger than most of
their grandchildren, those who come into contact with him cannot help
but recognize that something is different. Instead of growing older
with time, Button ages in reverse. Instead of taking his first steps
away from a crib or stroller, he walks away from a wheelchair. Instead
of training wheels, Button uses canes to steady himself.

With the body of an old man but the curiosity of a young boy, Button
sets out to see the world. He finds his way aboard a tug boat, and
lets the currents take him where they may. He goes to Russia and
England, and even plays a role in World War II. Along the way he meets
strange women and has new experiences. He takes his first drink when
he looks to be 70 and is with a woman for the first time only shortly
thereafter.

Amidst these salty adventures, Button longs for Daisy (Cate
Blanchett), a girl he knew and loved while growing up in New Orleans.
Button knows Daisy as a young girl and Daisy knows Button as an old
man, yet the pair keeps in touch while they each chart their own
paths. Eventually Button and Daisy find their way back to each other
and fall in love. For several years (but merely ten or so minutes of
the film), Button and Daisy embark upon their adventures together with
rigorous passion, seemingly unaware of the implications of time.

Both Button and Daisy age, move inevitably through time, but in
opposite directions. While Daisy deals with wrinkles and joint pain,
Button gets stronger, sharper, but further away from the woman he
loves. When the time-accosted lovers learn they are to have a child,
Button must decide to stay or leave. Although Button and Daisy meet in
the middle for a few beautiful years, Benjamin Button ages just like
any other person. The true tragedy is not the in inevitability of
change, but in the peculiar current that continually pushes Button
further and further away from those he loves.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is intriguing at first, but
whatever scaffolding is meant to buttress the audience's curiosity is
none too interesting. Just like Forrest Gump, Benjamin Button is an
out-of-place Southerner who experiences only brief and often painful
encounters with the woman he loves while he is simultaneously
embarking on great historical adventures. But Gump is loving, kind,
loyal—unknowingly remarkable. Gump fits seamlessly into history and
the audience gets it. Button, on the other hand, is flat and static.
His character does not change—neither matures nor becomes more
immature—and the most vivacity we see from him is while he rides a
motorcycle. Instead of showing the passage of time through the
characters' relationship to historical events, "The Curious Case of
Benjamin Button" pointlessly augments its scope with a slapdash
assortment of events that go nowhere and have no significance to the
story.

This film has interest built in, and some may argue that Button's
humanity is realistic and thus a virtue of the film. However, it seems
to me that "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is remarkably
unremarkable.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is rated PG-13 for brief war
violence, sexual content, language and smoking.

"Milk"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

“My name is Harvey Milk, and I am here to recruit you.” At a time when passionate disagreement over ideology continues to rend many parts of the country, “Milk” is a stirring, thought-provoking and worthy film.

“Milk” is the story of Harvey Milk, the first openly homosexual man to be elected to major office in America. When this story begins, Milk is a simple and private man looking for the same kind of happiness enjoyed by many Americans. Milk runs away to San Francisco with his lover (James Franco) in order to live a simple, fulfilling life. However, when Milk and Smith decide to open up a camera supply store they are confronted with the harsh reality of prejudice. In response to the lack of acceptance experienced by those wishing to put Milk and Smith out of business, Milk decides to fight back.

The once reserved businessman organizes the gay population of San Francisco to form a powerful network of mutual support, ironically leading to financial demise of those who once promised to deliver a similar fate to Milk. With the homosexual community behind him, Milk gradually becomes more active and outspoken about the injustices experienced by the gay community.

Much to the chagrin of the pacifistic Smith, Milk decides to run for local supervisor. After several defeats and methodological refinements, Milk is finally elected to office. Yet, for Milk, winning is not what is most important. What is most important is getting the word out, making an impression, and raising questions and doubts in the minds of others. Milk discovers that it was not he who was running for office; it was a cause that was really on the ballot.

Once in office, Milk continues to fight for the equal treatment for homosexuals. Milk faces fierce prejudice in addition to the normal political wrenching, the latter facilitated by fellow supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin). Milk makes gay rights a national issue by combating the likes of Anita Bryant and Senator John Briggs, who are both campaigning to repeal laws that make it illegal to discriminate in matters of business and education on the basis of sexual orientation. Bryant and Briggs cite the law of God as reason to root out and eliminate homosexuality in America. Just as two massive currents pour inevitably onward toward each other, Briggs and Milk face off in an iconic battle over what it means to say “all men are created equal.”

As with many stories, the story of Harvey Milk is not so much about the beginning and the end as it is about the in-between. Milk, once a shy and guarded businessman, became the voice of a passionate movement for equality. Milk, looking for peace, love and happiness, was struck down in his prime. These are the givens of the story—the aspects known to the audience from the outset. What is not necessarily known, and what really matters, is the humanity behind the movement. Milk may have been running on an issue, but it is Milk the man who brings the issue to the hearts and minds of the nation. For better or worse, “Milk” blurs the line between a person and an ideology.

Sean Penn is positively dazzling in this film—he is the undeniable highlight. No other actor or actress lags too far behind, but Penn’s performance will bring tears to your eyes just as much as it will bring ideas to your mind. Writer Dustin Lance Black and director Gus van Sant do a fine job developing what it means to be normal and accepted by comparing Milk’s private life with his public life; his desire for peace with his desire for change. The supposed tragic flaw of the hero in this tale is precisely what makes him happy and gives him hope. Milk chooses to hope and fight rather than be told who to be.

This movie is touching, funny, and raises issues worth grappling with. The score and cadence of plot progression contribute keep the viewer involved and interested. “Milk” reminds us that there are real people behind even the most polarizing of issues, and although wise people differ ideologically, the wisest find a way to love and respect each other.

“Milk” is rated R for language, some sexual content and brief violence.

--Originally Printing in Coastal View News--

"Quantum of Solace"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Innumerable vanquished villains, countless wild and romantic love affairs, decades of swanky cinema and just one man behind it all: James Bond. Bond has gotten tougher, meaner and still cleverer in the past few years, with the help of the new blonde Bond, Daniel Craig. With Craig came more substance and a reason to suspend disbelief. “Quantum of Solace” cashes in some of the substance but none of the style accrued in “Casino Royale” for more guns, explosions, sweat and blood. “Quantum of Solace” is plenty entertaining, but well shy of inspiring.

In “Quantum of Solace” the once imperturbable James Bond (Daniel Craig) is fighting not only for God, queen and country, but also for revenge. Still beleaguered by questions and regrets after having lost Vesper Lynd (Eva Green)—the one woman for whom Bond was willing to sacrifice everything—the only stable aspect of Bond’s return to MI6 is his ruthless ability. Bond has a duty to follow orders, but a desire to avenge his loss. On the one hand is a covert organization called “Quantum” implicated in the plot that resulted in the death of Lynd. On the other hand is Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a very wealthy, very shrewd and very well-connected environmentalist businessman.

When Bond travels to Haiti to investigate Quantum, he runs across the scheming and nefarious Greene. Bond discovers that Greene is attempting to grab economic power in South America by toppling the current government and replacing it with the corrupt General Madrano (Joaquin Cosio). The only thing Greene appears to be seeking in return is the deed to an arid, useless portion of South American desert. Of course, unbeknownst to the general, the land is rich with valuable oil and water. Bond smells a rat and ignores M’s (Judi Dench) insistence that he stay on task. While investigating Greene, Bond is drawn into a relationship with Camille (Olga Kurylenko), who is attempting to exact her own revenge against general Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) for killing her family in cold blood.

The plot thickens as more is discovered about Greene’s intentions, and as the American government is drawn into a business relationship with Greene. Bond, who always plays by his own rules, becomes increasingly unpopular as he dodges bullets from eco-terrorists, corrupt Americans, and the fed-up MI6 leadership. The seemingly disparate plots begin to tangle and cohere, and Bond is left to sort it all out.

“Quantum of Solace” begins and ends with reference to “Casino Royale,” and in the meantime fails to create its own, powerful narrative. All films in a series connect in various ways to prequels and sequels, but all good films in a series also tell their own unique portion of the tale in a coherent manner. Unfortunately the story behind “Quantum of Solace” is somehow lost in the shuffle. It is up for debate whether the true currency of James Bond films is plot or action, brains or brawn. “Casino Royale” revived the series with an exceptionally brawny Daniel Craig, but perhaps even more importantly, with a clever script. In “Quantum of Solace” Craig is brawnier than ever, but at the expense of the intellectual intrigue that caught the eye of many viewers when Craig first came on. The result is a very exciting and entertaining film that lacks substance. Given the outrageously bad Bond films of the past two decades, it may be fair to note that beggars can’t be choosers. “Quantum of Solace” is still one of the better Bond films in recent decades.

“Quantum of Solace” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some sexual content.

"Role Models"

By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News

Sean William Scott and Paul Rudd wed coarseness with wit as they attempt to transform from immature hooligans into thoughtful albeit court-ordered philanthropists in “Role Models.” A warranted but frustrating comeuppance turns out well for the pair by eliciting both reparation and moral development. A hackneyed storyline is the true misdemeanor here, but this crime is atoned for by inconsistent yet witty laughs.

Danny Donahue (Paul Rudd) is a self-aware, underachieving spokesman for Minotaur energy drink, who begrudgingly visits schools to urge kids to drink the semi-toxic energy drink instead of doing drugs. Wheeler (Seann William Scott) is Danny’s immature sidekick dressed in a Minotaur costume who, unlike Danny, has no desire to pursue a more meaningful career or lifestyle. Born out of ubiquitous frustration, it is Danny’s immature behavior, not Wheeler’s, that ends up costing Danny not only his longtime girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks), but also both Danny and Wheeler their jobs and standing with the law.

As the result of a day of Danny’s reckless behavior, both he and Wheeler are sentenced to 150 hours of community service at a big brother agency called Sturdy Wings. However, jail time begins to look rather rosy next to the combination of an insane supervisor (Jane Lynch) and two of the most difficult kids to mentor. A difficult situation quickly becomes a nightmare. Wheeler is forced to contend with hell-raiser extraordinaire, Ronnie (Bobb’e Thompson), and Danny is assigned the geeky, foam-sword-wielding Auggie (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

As is to be expected, both Danny and Wheeler are inept and uninterested at first, but the challenges they are forced to face bring about soul searching and a behavioral turnaround. Wheeler learns that there is more to life than skirt chasing and drinking, while Danny learns to appreciate other people for who they are instead of expecting everyone to see the world as he does. Four characters, all in a uniquely bad place in life, come together to both accept and change who they are. It is when each abandon their own well-being in favor of the group that each begins to thrive.

If “Role Models” is not completely unoriginal, this film at least gives the appearance of being built on an oft-used Hollywood assembly line. Six writers penned “Role Models” (rarely a very good thing), which means that this comedy was not so much focused on unity of voice or a strong narrative as much as it was focused on one-liners and situational humor. The result is a noticeably slapped-together set of scenes.

However, most moviegoers do not go to a comedy, especially one like “Role Models,” for a powerful story as much as they go for a good laugh. If the story is great, so much the better, but as long as the film is non-stop funny, all is well. Unfortunately it is not so easy to partition laughs from a storyline, especially when situational humor requires building steam to get moving. Danny and Wheeler are meant to be humorously stuck between a rock and a hard place, but this aspect of the film is rarely funny. What are funny are the jokes and one-liners, particularly the ones delivered by Paul Rudd and Jane Lynch. Rudd’s sarcasm and wit are believable and charming, even if they are painful to witness. Seann William Scott draws a few laughs, but not many.

“Role Models” is better than most other comedies similarly conceived, but certainly not a classic. Expect to laugh out loud, but don’t expect to remember it the next day.

“Role Models” is rated R for crude and sexual content, strong language and nudity.