Brian's Review - Quarantine

Time to update your vaccinations.

Released: 2008
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller, Sci-Fi

America has a habit of taking other countries' awesome ideas and giving them the Hollywood remake treatment, often to the entire world's chagrin. While not all repackaging attempts fail, those that do fail so hard that I audibly groan (or swear) when I see a new one being advertised. Combine that with the standard of awfulness set by "found footage"-style films and you can easily see why "Quarantine" immediately climbed to the top of my "Looks Too Stupid to Give a Chance" list. And there it stayed for almost four whole years until I saw it at the library and my morbid curiosity kicked in (what can I say? I'm a sucker for free movies). While many sources tell me that the original Spanish film "REC" (sometimes stylized as "[REC]" or "[Rec]") is far superior and far scarier than this remake, I have to say that I honestly enjoyed most of what "Quarantine" had to offer (although if "REC" is supposedly a better movie, I'll definitely have to check that out soon).

Set almost completely in a dark apartment building, this spin on the zombie survival sub-genre intelligently utilizes its environment to produce some intensely claustrophobic encounters with the ravenous menaces stalking those unfortunate enough to still be alive during this nightmare. The film does a nice job of building up tension before delivering some solid nerve-blasting jolts - all without relying on a corny or predictable soundtrack. In fact, the only audio in the entire movie is the sound of terrified screaming/crying from the survivors, enraged shrieking from the zombie-tenants as they hunt down said survivors, and occasionally the squishy sounds of some poor sap being disemboweled. The experience becomes a daunting test of bravery as abandoned apartment rooms quickly transform from silent, dark sanctuaries into echoing caverns of bone-chilling chaos without a single warning. I'm not a huge fan of the jump-scare, but it's employed here quite effectively. The creature effects are commendably creepy as well, with the zombies looking more like diseased, emaciated (and terrifyingly fast) horrors than clumsy, shambling, B-movie corpses.

The biggest issue I had with this flick is a common one among horror entries (and one that will probably never be truly fixed by the industry): protagonists being idiots. If I had a bottle of mouthwash for every time I've seen a moronic survivor cluelessly reach out to touch a person who is clearly already an effing zombie, I'd be the town drunk. "Quarantine" seems eager to fit in with the rest, falling guilty of this, as well as many other mindless clichés. It's the type of film that really doesn't want its characters to survive, and doesn't give a damn about whether you do or not. In fact, it's easier to not care about their mortality when they're acting like a bunch of brainless children who got into dad's private stash of cocaine from the '80s. Carelessly running around while screaming and making generally dumb decisions means you can become zombie food for all I care.

Overall, the flick pulls itself together into something that shocks, rattles, and unsettles to an adequate degree. It's not a masterpiece (as I'm told of "REC" - review pending), but it's a pretty decent remake, especially given its gimmicky composition. I'd definitely recommend it over the slew of subpar filth that makes up similar entries in the sub-genre. If you live in an apartment, you can even use "Quarantine" as a guide on what not to do in the middle of a zombie attack inside a shared residential building. Added bonus!

Rating (out of 5): 3

Movie-Related Nonsense: The Oatmeal's "How movie theaters SHOULD be laid out"

Since it's Monday and my brain is exhausted from weekend shenanigans (read: "still recovering from my attempt to drown it with beer"), I decided to save writing a new review for a later date. Instead, I wanted to share with you a comic strip that perfectly sums up my thoughts every time I go into a movie theater (and is largely responsible for why I hate going to see new films in said theaters). It's from The Oatmeal, a hilariously-pointed webcomic written and illustrated by the incredibly talented Matthew Inman. Check out his site for consistently brilliant commentary on everything from movies to religion to Sriracha sauce.

Click here to see the most intelligent movie theater redesign I've ever seen. Enjoy.

New movie reviews coming soon, because that's what I do! Thanks for all the awesome support!

Brian's Review - The Hangover Part II

Grab some aspirin and black coffee for this one.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Comedy

2009 brought us the original "The Hangover" - a rip-roaring romp through the seediest venues in Las Vegas, starring a pack of physically and morally-dehydrated (yet lovable) idiots attempting to piece a drunken and drugged night of unbridled debauchery back together. Insanity ensued. Laughter was had. Then a sequel was announced and the world held its breath with anticipation for what surely had to be a second, side-splitting comedy tour de force.

Alas. Those were simpler, more innocent times. Times before recycled jokes and scenarios were thrown about all willy-nilly in an uninspired attempt to cash in on the success of the first film. Times before full-frontal nudity seared my eyeballs at every turn. Times before...well, that last one was pretty bad; we'll leave it at that.

That's not to say that "The Hangover Part II" is a bad movie. In fact, there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and one-liners that were just as, if not more genius than the first flick. The comedy stylings of Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong are particularly potent here, playing up the already outrageous characters they portrayed in the original. Everyone else comfortably slips back into their archetypes with ease, rounding out a solid cast with some serious laugh-generating potential. So why does this movie not hit like the first entry did?

For one, almost everything here is a reheated leftover from the preceding film - some scenes are shameless replicas of the first movie, almost shot-for-shot - and while this was delicious the first time around, nobody likes soggy french fries. Unfortunately, this blandness permeates throughout the entire film, weakly imitating some of the best jokes from the original.

Second, where was the acting here? I know it's a comedy with the primary focus of bathing in smut, but part of selling comedy is making it at least a little bit human or relatable. With the exception of Ed Helms, nobody seems to actually react to the fact that mind-boggling shit is going down for a second time. Nobody (once again, excluding Helms) gets overly pissed off. Nobody freaks out. Everybody kind of just takes it as it is and shrugs it all off, especially during the rushed and feeble ending scenes.

Third, where's the story? Whereas the first movie had the protagonists stumbling upon delightful situation after delightful situation (which did a great job of fleshing out interpersonal relationships and backstories), we're left knowing next to nothing about what actually happened during this most outrageous journey. With such a radically different setting to work with, it's a wonder why this wasn't capitalized on more. Instead, all we get are a bunch of shots of wieners.

And that brings us to our fourth point: shock factor. I'm all for it, when used in moderation, but to completely replace the plot with gross/weird-out moments is purely amateur. It grabs a couple of laughs here and there, but overall this darker take on humor actually hits with far less comedic impact than it should. And that's because it's repeatedly beaten into the fabric of this film. With a penis.

It may seem like I panned the eff out of this flick (my writing kind of did), but I want to make sure everyone knows that I didn't hate "The Hangover Part II"; rather, I was just very disappointed. The last movie was a delicious, well-seasoned steak. I came back to the same restaurant, ordered the same thing as last time, and was served this film: a Steak-Umm with ketchup on it. It serves up a decent helping of funny moments, but overall it's incredibly underwhelming, and for that I have to drop it down to a score of "meh." Let's hope that the next "The Hangover" movie comes back a bit less hungover.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Grave Encounters

Just another reason to hate mental hospitals.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror

I've said it a million times before, but I'll say it again: I hate "found footage"-style movies. More often than not, they're cheesy, gimmicky wastes of time, marred by horrendous acting, paper-thin storylines, and a linear mentality that severely limits the film's ability to build up any real terror. They're a lot like the guy at the party who knows how to do magic, but only knows one trick (and that trick is already kind of lame). Needless to say, I wasn't setting my expectations very high when I saw "Grave Encounters" sitting in the long line of third-rate horror movies on Netflix. Also, the last horror flick I watched about mental asylums was the abysmal "The Ward" and the horrible aftertaste that experience left with me was still fresh enough to make me wary of the sub-genre. Regardless, I had a couple beers to numb my brain for what I assumed would be a mentally-deadening hour and a half of cinematic slop and hit play.

Turns out, I was pleasantly surprised. This is by no means a masterpiece, but it hits all the right notes in terms of horror fare - the scares come quick and vicious, making up for a slow opening that plods on for just a little too long. Then again, without this rather lengthy, incredibly cheesy setup, there wouldn't be nearly as many fun, obvious jabs in the direction of crap like "Ghost Adventures" and the multitude of other similar shows starring douchebags with cameras in dark buildings. As far as satire is concerned, this film hits the nail right on the head.

As I mentioned, the movie does a great job at being frightening, but it's how it goes about it that makes it truly memorable. There's definitely less emphasis on the amateur jump-scare technique, with more chills being drawn out and built up through subtle imagery, creepy ambient sound effects, and the downright terrified reactions of the characters. Some panned this flick for its special effects, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly, as I found the ghosts here to be intensely unsettling. More disturbing still is the fact that the cast isn't your standard, horror film, throwaway kill-fodder: instead of helplessly and idiotically bumbling about with targets on their backs, these people fight to stay alive. Hard. They break down every door in their way, seek safety when attacked, and do what they can to survive what is honestly one of the most nightmarish onscreen situations I've seen recently. Watching them struggle with such fervor against the dark forces closing in around them, only to fall time and time again, is ridiculously disheartening. To further strengthen this oppressive atmosphere, the abundance of supernatural elements here are expertly combined with a claustrophobic setting enshrined in darkness, getting under your skin all the more when the whole mess is compacted by all the heaviest characteristics of a psychological thriller.

Needless to say, "Grave Encounters" left me both unexpectedly impressed and insanely creeped out. This is honestly some spooky shit. If you hate mental patients, the facilities they're housed in, ghosts, dark hallways, dark hallways in mental facilities full of the ghosts of mental patients, or the F-word, your heart will probably explode in a ball of crybaby hysteria upon watching this. For everyone else, it won't scare the dickens out of you, but it's an experience that's sure to bring a healthy dose of dread and suspense into your life, while simultaneously poking fun at the reality TV industry. In the world of suffocating, Netflix horror sludge, "Grave Encounters" is a solid piece of ground to take a break on.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - The Hunger Games

This is not the greatest sacrifice in the world. This is just a tribute.

Released: 2012
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

Say what you will of today's movie culture, Hollywood is pretty gifted when it comes to harnessing the mass attention of the tween/teen demographic. Look at "The Twilight Saga": the fourth film hasn't even come out yet, but it's already whipping fan girls into some sort of unstoppable, frothing bloodlust. Teenagers love what's hot, and right now "The Hunger Games" is a 3000-degree glass-melting oven. Unfortunately, to hype up the product even more, the transition from page to screen experienced some noticeable watering-down.

That's not to say that "The Hunger Games" is a bad book-to-movie adaptation; in fact, this is one of the best ones I've seen, at least in terms of fan service. Many of the iconic scenes from the original novel make their way into this silver screen interpretation, meaning people who have read the book will be able appreciate the plethora of nods to the source material here. While this focus is one of the film's greatest strengths, it's also a huge drawback.

"The Hunger Games" is almost too much of a tribute (no pun intended) to fans of the book series, making this initially appealing asset a double-edged sword in many ways. I understand why it was necessary to cut out much of Suzanne Collins' original 374-page work, with this bad boy already clocking in at almost two and a half hours, but what was chosen to be removed is what confuses me. While the main body of the story remains intact, many of the more intricate details of the plot are executed, but never explained, leaving anyone who hasn't read the book scratching their heads in blind confusion. While it's not especially detrimental to the onscreen action, the storyline gets a bit muddled at points due to this, losing a massive amount of momentum as a consequence.

Probably the most frustrating example of this is the whitewashing of the characters' personalities, particularly that of protagonist Katniss Everdeen. I, in no way, blame Jennifer Lawrence for the blandness of her character here - she proved herself a more than capable actress in "Winter's Bone" - nor do I criticize Suzanne Collins, whose protagonist in the novel is strong-willed, resourceful, and mature beyond her years. Rather, I point the finger at Hollywood for making her into a somewhat cold, emotionless vehicle for flashy action elements and star power-driven marketing strategies. It's sad to see this happen to a character that stands tall in the world of strong female leads, at least in her literary adventures.

The sense of frantic urgency and hopeless, heavy, dystopian atmosphere the books convey so well are also unfortunately lost in translation. Except for the scenes where horrible stuff is actually getting up in Katniss' shit (i.e. fire, murderous teens from other districts, etc.), you never feel like she's in any real danger. And unlike in the novel, the starving masses of the world are nowhere to be seen; in fact, nobody seems all that hungry - I mean, isn't that why the competition is called The Hunger Games? Good gravy, that should be a no-brainer in terms of details.

Instead, the filmmakers place the main emphasis on the action, and before you start bellyaching, let's clear something up - this is an action flick, and it is based on an action-focused adventure book. Sure, it can get a little angst-ridden, but this isn't a clichéd teen romance, so don't throw a temper tantrum when this movie decides to spend less time spouting sweet nothings and more time wrecking kids in the face. Although I would've preferred a more "Battle Royale"-style film, full of gut-wrenching kills, I understand why the violence from the novel is toned down to meet the target audience's PG-13 rating. The unfortunate consequence of softening these kills is that they become less profound and less shocking than those portrayed in the book. Still, the movie does a pretty damn good job of packing in as much brutal, high-paced action as possible, while maintaining its teen-friendly image.

There's honestly not a whole lot more I can say about this film (sorry for the gigantic-ass review, but thank you for sticking it out until the end). "The Hunger Games" is a pretty decent book-to-movie adaptation (it blows the first "Twilight" crapfest right out of the water), but it's far short of "great." Still, it should be fun for readers of the novels and action fans alike, with plenty of bloodshed and interesting interpersonal relationships to win over new fans as well. I say check it out and get your slaughter on.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Priest (2011)

Even if you pray for it, this movie doesn't get any better.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Horror, Sci-Fi

In a cinematic market saturated with cheeseball, romanticized vampire love-romps, it's nice to see a movie bring the fight back to these supernatural beings with all the bloody, balls-to-the-wall determination of 1998's "Blade." While "Priest" missteps many times in many directions, it's not the worst film I've seen, and I can't condone hating it as a whole. With that being said, it's also not a movie I can particularly like, and I can absolutely condone hating certain pieces of it.

While the film's visual style is a sleek, flashy, streamlined blend of commendable CGI and prop work, the world the characters inhabit lacks sufficient substance: the oppressive human city ruled by the church doesn't seem oppressive enough, the desert wasteland doesn't seem harsh enough, the vampire hives don't feel threatening enough. This could be overlooked if it wasn't for the fact that the main character and his companion(s) are constantly exploring new settings throughout their journey, bringing us back over and over again to locations that are not fleshed out in the least. It's an overlooked aspect that unfortunately damages the presentation of the movie, and prevents viewers from immersing themselves into this fantasy backdrop.

In fact, it may be hard for some viewers to invest themselves into this film at all due to a number of reasons. Continuity (or lack thereof) in regards to the original Korean comic aside, "Priest" has a story as interesting as a wet paper bag and as engaging as a Slinky without a staircase; it's practically nonexistent, and what is there is pretty ho-hum. Additionally, none of the characters seem to give a damn about anything, including each other. The interpersonal relationships here are sparse at most, and the "acting" seems to all be executed as a complete afterthought. Which is acceptable, to a degree - after all, this is an action flick.

And as an action flick, "Priest" shines: the vampires are hellish, vile, and savage creatures, making the fight scenes rapid and brutal, and blood is splashed liberally about the screen during the ensuing chaos. It's not some of the most fluid choreography out there, but it gets the job done in a quick, dirty, and fun manner that should satiate the appetites of most action fans. There are a couple moments here that stood out as completely badass, proving "Priest" as an enjoyably competent actioner.

In the end, "Priest" boils down to a mediocre concoction, unable to establish a profound sense of compassion, understanding, or urgency, while successfully utilizing action sequences to pump itself into a high-octane fight scene showcase. Without substance, the movie quickly crumbles under its own weight, forcing it to lean on its effects and set pieces to an almost crippling degree. Fortunately, if you're going in looking for an action film and nothing else, "Priest" will maintain your interest throughout, since it spends all of 15 minutes to explain any of the plot. This is great for adrenaline junkies, but bad for anyone looking for anything deeper. View at your own discretion.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Darkness (2002)

You probably won't even need a nightlight for this one.

Released: 2002
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

The "haunted house" sub-genre of horror - as overdone as it is - is one of my favorites, so I'm always on the lookout for hidden gems I may have missed over the years. Long before her rise to fame as the star of the inexplicably popular, vampire flavor-of-the-moment "True Blood," Anna Paquin was effing around with other supernatural forces in "Darkness" - a horror movie so bad, I'm surprised the residual stigma didn't cripple her career permanently. This was not the droi-...erm, haunted house I was looking for. In fact, it's not the haunted house anyone is looking for. Not that people go around looking for haunted houses on the regular. Well, I guess douchebags do.

Far too frequently, I find that directors neglect to include the one primary ingredient that makes a horror film a horror film: horror. How the hell do you forget that? "Darkness" falls into this category of teeth-grindingly false advertising, selling the prospect of terror here with all the effort and honed precision of a German Olympic diver. Not only is this movie almost completely devoid of scares, but the ones that did make their way into this film are so flimsy and underwhelming that they're also immediately forgettable. Without any kind of backbone, the "frightening" aspects of this film (many of which are almost directly lifted from similar flicks) flop about clumsily and inconsistently, never truly digging into the viewer with any kind of substantial force. You're constantly wanting more while watching this. Add some of the worst acting ever seen in the past ten years to some of the most rigid, robotic dialogue ever written, and you have the recipe for a big bowl of instant disappointment soup.

There's little silver lining to be found in this attempt, but what there is can be located in the first half of this gigantic, steaming cinematic turd. This is where the plot (which later turns into a wildly-thrashing, nonsensical melodrama) is actually interesting and holds some suspenseful potential as it delves into the occult and supernatural rustlings within the house. "Darkness" - ever so briefly - finds its footing during these miniscule moments, and manages to present a tense and creepy mood. Mind you, immediately after each scene, the atmosphere quickly throws up in its own mouth and chokes to death, so make sure you don't blink, because you can potentially miss all the "good" parts here.

There's no denying that "Darkness" is crap: everything from its acting to its direction is executed poorly. What it lacks in substance, it makes up for slightly with mystery and thrills in the opening act, although even these unfortunately dissipate almost entirely into yawn-inducing clichés and some of the most unrealistic portrayals of human reactions of all time. I'm not even sure that "Darkness" would've turned out any better in any other director's hands, solely due to the fact that the story is so stupid; in that respect, it reminds me of another incredibly lame movie that touted a theme centered on darkness. And much like that film, this one should've left us all in the dark about its existence.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - The Descent

A fun experience that descends into stupidity.

Released: 2005
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller, Adventure

For years now, I've been told by dozens of my friends to check out "The Descent" - apparently, "one of the scariest horror movies of all time." I heard grand stories about how heavy the atmosphere was, how it was littered with terrifying jump-scares, and hardcore action sequences. And, no offense to said friends, but it all honestly made me want to avoid the eff out of something so massively hyped-up. Seven years later, my willpower worn to its breaking point, I borrowed this "instant classic" from the library to see if it really was worth all the buzz. Even though I managed to go into it with only moderately-high expectations, "The Descent" just didn't cut it for me.

One part spelunking accident film (think "Sanctum" on land), one part creature-feature, "The Descent" isn't especially original, but the concept has tons of potential for claustrophobic encounters and brutal violence, which it does manage to deliver plenty of. In fact, once the first creepy-crawly makes itself apparent (actually one of the best parts of the entire movie) and our female protagonists finally start to repurpose their climbing gear into deadly weapons, things manage to get mildly exciting. Unfortunately, the fight scenes only occasionally border on badass, with most of the girls degrading into unlikeable idiots, ending up as lame vehicles for cheap-looking gore effects. The action sequences suffer from a strong case of premature climax, satiating nothing but quick adrenaline fixes. It wouldn't be such a lopsided payout if the scenes between weren't so excruciatingly boring, infuriating, or soulless.

The main characters completely lack any semblance of intelligent thought, and therefore prevent any semblance of sympathy to be cast their way. It always sucks when a filmmaker doesn't manage to infuse a single note of humor into any of the writing, and it sucks even more when said brainless dialogue leads to the protagonists having only as much personality as the feral savages hunting them. This was like watching an episode of "BattleBots," with the girls and monsters hacking each other to pieces, except that show was fun and involved science, whereas this just involves stupid jump-scares and bad acting. I also cared about the fates of the robots in "BattleBots" more than the characters here. Cardboard cutouts, all the way around.

Don't get me wrong here - I halfway liked this movie, if only for the visceral and oftentimes over-the-top action scenes; these moments were genuinely fun and the idea of battling something hellish with a climbing pick is pretty hardcore. However, there are just far too many negatives here to give it a good score, most notably the fact that this film isn't scary at all. There is so much potential here for primal, darkness-themed, tight-quartered terror, and "The Descent" drops the ball in every way possible. This also means my friends either a) are gigantic, wimpy babies, b) are shamelessly lying trolls, or c) don't remember 2005 very well. Maybe it just wasn't that scary of a year. Then again, Robert Rodriguez did decide to make the movie "The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl" in 2005, which sucked so hard that it was horrifying to think that Rodriguez willing created it. Regardless, "The Descent" doesn't live up to the cult-like fervor surrounding it, and is a mildly distracting experience at best.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns

The creepiest cigarette company ad ever.

Released: 2005
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Despite the misleading name, John Carpenter's Masters of Horror entry "Cigarette Burns" has nothing to do with smoking tobacco and a lot to do with the slang term referring to cue marks that appear on film reels. It also has a lot to do with a cursed movie that effs up people's lives, à la that creepy video from "The Ring," or the insanely disturbing 1920's silent short film "Un Chien Andalou" (which some may know for its famously grotesque scene of an eyeball being slit open with a straight razor). While the movie "Cigarette Burns" is unsettling in itself, this film within the film is almost like a living, breathing character with a far more important - and sinsiter - role than most of the human cast.

In typical Carpenter fashion, this movie plays up the slow burn, albeit at a bit of an accelerated pace, since it has to cram an entire plotline into a mere hour's timespan (after all, "Masters of Horror" is technically a television series). Unfortunately, with such a limited length, those precious moments that are eaten up by the movie dragging its ass seem all the more pointless. While the greatest scenes occur when the atmosphere is at its most foreboding and psychologically horrific, the in-between moments plod along and break up any sort of tension that could have been capitalized on. Carpenter, however, is a master of his craft, with experience allowing him to gather flesh-rending steam and enough momentum to barrel into this film's ultimately satisfying climax at full force.

I can't really say that I was blown away by this attempt: it's undeniably unnerving, but it doesn't have enough conviction behind it to make it truly scary. Still, it's one of the better acted (fan girls - and probably some boys too - will squeal with delight at the sight of Norman Reedus) and more unique concepts for "Masters of Horror," and not everything about the execution can be critiqued negatively. If you're looking for a good place to dive headfirst into the series from, then seek no more; John Carpenter will guide you the rest of the way.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Adventureland

More fun than Misadventureland.

Released: 2009
Genre(s): Comedy, Drama, Romance

Teen dramedies have been coming out for as long as the dinosaurs have been extinct. While calling them "hit-or-miss" would actually be a generous evaluation of the sub-genre as a whole, those that have managed to surpass the typical summer slopfest tend to stick out as instant classics. 2009's "Adventureland" falls just short of achieving status as a timeless title, but still manages to serve up heaps of that bittersweet flavoring we all love to shovel down our gullets.

Set in what many consider to be easily one of the cheesiest eras of all time, this '80s-styled period piece focuses on all the roaring good times and stupefying woes of young adulthood, and does so in delightfully accurate fashion: "Adventureland" doesn't try to sugarcoat its portrayal of what is ultimately an awkward and undeniably bizarre time in every person's life. This in itself is a commendable feat, since it seems that most directors tend to lean heavily on caricatures and bold misrepresentations of what really goes down during this phase of existence. More often than not, these efforts are pretty effing bad, so it's nice to see a movie make an earnest effort at capturing the period's human elements instead of sacrificing them entirely for the sake of exaggerated humor.

While the post-adolescent drama might grate a bit on the more mature palette, this film boasts a cast with some pretty decent acting chops that is more than talented enough to deliver the movie's abundance of witty comedy. Clever - and oftentimes deadpan - dialogue claims the spotlight here rather than loud, boisterous slapstick, making this more "Superbad" than "American Pie"; indeed, "Adventureland" channels a pretty prominent John Hughes vibe, and once you feel its laid-back, mildly-angsty goodness, you'll throw your fist right up into the air while your outro music plays.

It's not perfect - the characters grow annoying at times as they flounder about without direction, the plot stumbles clumsily and lacks the subtly of its humor, and at points, the writing becomes so stale that everything almost grinds to an agonizing halt. However, the charm here is soundly ingrained into the myriad of interpersonal interactions and colorful dialogue, making this one ticket worth buying. By the time "Adventureland" ends, you'll wish the ride hadn't rolled back into the station quite so quickly.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5