After the mixed reaction, most of which was negative, to “Death Proof,” Quentin Tarantino’s 2007 effort in the underappreciated “Grindhouse” with fellow director Robert Rodriguez, one would hope the once universally praised writer/director would follow up with a film that would bring back the energy not seen since his greatest work – “Pulp Fiction.” With the slam of a bat and the slash of a knife, Tarantino re-ignited what was becoming a summer of extreme over hype with the release of his most entertaining film to date, “Inglourious Basterds.”

Split into five chapters, the film centers around young Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a Jewish girl who, after losing her family to the hands of the most evil officer under the Fuhrer, Col. Hans Landa (played by Austrian actor Christoph Waltz), hides out under the alias Emmanuelle Mimieux and runs a cinema where she must screen Nazi propaganda. Shosanna gets noticed by the young war hero Pvt. Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl) who also happens to be the star (and title character) of a new film by Joseph Goebbels (Sylvester Groth). Zoller procures her theater for a premiere, and upon finding out that both Landa and the majority of the high ranking officers will be attending, Shosanna plots to burn down the theater.

At the same time, the Allied forces have heard of this premiere and set up a plot of their own involving the Nazi hunting terrorists led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), aptly named the Inglourious Basterds, German actress Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), a British film critic (Michael Fassbender) and a whole lot of dynamite. It’s been a while since we’ve seen a film of this nature, a character actor’s dream ensemble in a farce in the vein of “The Dirty Dozen” and my personal favorite war film “Kelly’s Heroes.”

The film is a heck of a lot of fun. Pitt’s “leading” role results in something of a cameo, but his star power doesn’t overpower his screen presence. Raine is charismatic yet humorously slow-witted. It’s always nice to see Pitt in a role like this or in “Burn After Reading” as opposed to over-bloated films like “Benjamin Button.” While he is undeniably one of the biggest stars in Hollywood, it’s his work in character acting that proves he has talent.

If this film proves one thing, it’s that Tarantino knows how to direct the actor. The performance of Christoph Waltz is in the same category as Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight” or Javier Bardem in “No Country For Old Men.” Waltz’s Hans Landa is a complex villain, always one step ahead of his foes and throughout the film proves to be the master of control. In acting, taking control of the scene and being able to move in and out of it is key. Waltz does this with ease. In one particular scene, Landa loses his cool when he is lied to by cracking up uncontrollably. His breakdown is equally hilarious and eerie at the same time. It’d be a shame to see his lose out on a nomination at this year’s Oscars (although he won the Best Actor prize at Cannes, so hopefully that will help to secure a slot).

The rest of the cast is memorable as well, including director-turned-actor Eli Roth (“Hostel”) as the Jew Bear – a member of the Basterds who wields a baseball bat and thinks himself the Ted Williams of Nazi brain bashing. Mike Myers makes a (gasp!) hilarious cameo as a British Intelligence officer, instilling hope for a career that has been long since irrelevant. Groth is wonderful as Goebbels, painting a hilarious portrait of a psychotic egomaniac. The casting is superb, utilizing either little known actors for major roles and big names for the smaller parts.

The film isn’t perfect, but it’s that rough-around-the-edges style that makes Tarantino stand out often among his generation of filmmakers. It is deservedly his most financially successful film since “Pulp Fiction” but in terms of being a revolutionary screenwriter/director, it seems as though he’ll never make something as singularly masterful as his second feature. As entertaining as “Inglourious Basterds” may be, it never outshines “Pulp Fiction.” At this point in his career, the fans of Tarantino are getting a little nervous as to whether or not the auteur will face the Orson Welles curse.

There’s very little point to looking for meaning in a Tarantino film, and that’s not what I’m referring to as disappointing. “Pulp Fiction” was a modern masterpiece, already a staple in film studies courses and in film literature. It was his “Citizen Kane” and most likely will never be bested. However, the future of American cinema is currently obscured. It would be incredible to see a director like Tarantino actually re-invent cinema again, and while “Inglourious Basterds” isn’t a perfect film, it still shows that the auteur still has chops to bring us something we’ve never seen.

It looks as though, with “Inglourious Basterds,” Tarantino is trying to keep up his reputation as one of the most interesting and original directors of our time. With every film, Tarantino achieves something a little different. With his debut, “Reservoir Dogs,” Tarantino changed the heist film forever. With “Pulp Fiction,” he re-defined modern screenwriting. Through the “Kill Bill” films, he brought the samurai story back to cinema. In “Death Proof,” he re-imagined the B-movie genre. “Inglourious Basterds” creates a new sub-genre of the historical fiction – what could be considered “pulp” historical fiction. Whatever Tarantino comes up with next, it’ll be guaranteed, no matter your opinion on the director, to be something worthy of his reputation. Here’s hoping for another chapter in the story of American cinema, to be brought to us by Quentin Tarantino.

Grade: A-

Tired of the same old love story? That clichéd boy meets girl, they hate each other then learn to love each other, garbage that, while sometimes can be saved by smart filmmakers (Nora Ephron is one of the genre’s saving graces), is just too often filled with “we’ve seen it a million times” junk? Filmmakers like John Hughes, Mike Nichols, Jean-Luc Godard, Woody Allen and most recently Michel Gondry are the few who took the romantic film and created the anti-love story. Instead of overly romanticizing, they showed love for what it really is – painful, happy and everything in between and most importantly were able to present love as something real and not in that perfect little box that we wish it could be.

The debut independent feature by music video director Marc Webb, “(500) Days of Summer,” is both an homage to these great directors, but also a refreshing new film that presents, as its narrator explains, “a story of boy meets girl … not a love story.” An honest film, with an incredible script – this is one of the best films of the year.

“(500) Days of Summer” tells the story of Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a twentysomething who works for a greeting card company, is obsessed with the music of The Smiths and is hopelessly in love with romantic love. Over the course of, well 500 days, Tom falls for his adorable coworker Summer (Zooey Deschanel), a nihilist pixie with a love for Ringo Starr and a knack for origami. As their romance begins to bloom (over a connection to a Smiths song), the infatuated yet terribly naïve Tom must give in to Summer’s attitude toward love (she doesn’t believe in it) and, of course as their relationship ends – it takes an incredible toll on Tom and not on Summer.

The story sounds somewhat played, but through the pens of scribes Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber and through Webb’s lens, Tom and Summer’s story is removed from cliché. The film is very much a modern take on Allen’s “Annie Hall,” in that it doesn’t present love as something tangible and that it shows how the screenplay doesn’t have to be concrete. Like “Annie Hall,” “(500) Days of Summer” is a story about love, yet since the plot is non-linear – we are able to see how the relationship works or worked and what caused the inevitable decline.

Instead of using worn-out flashbacks, the film uses repeated shots – such as a shopping trip to a record shop where Tom tries to show Summer a Ringo record for both his and her approval. As the film progresses, we see the shot repeated and extended to see the reaction shots of both Tom and Summer. It shows the pains of wanting the one you love to share something, and how you know sometimes that it just won’t connect.

It’s not only the honesty of the film or its refreshing storytelling style that makes it so strong – it also features strong performances by its leading up-and-coming stars. Deschanel is already a fairly big star, having proven her range in comedies like “Elf” and the underrated “Eulogy.” She’s perfectly cast, not just for her looks but proves a talent she’s never offered before. Deschanel is quickly becoming America’s new sweetheart. She uses microgestures, small yet endearing smiles that invoke the same lump in one’s throat as would some of Chaplin’s greatest women. If this doesn’t make Deschanel A-list, then there’s something seriously wrong with American audiences.

Gordon-Levitt is superb in the role as Tom. Like Nichols’ Dustin Hoffman in “The Graduate,” Gordon-Levitt is not your average leading man – he’s skinny, has tousled hair and doesn’t have traditionally good looks … but it all works. Tom is something of a classic loser, a late bloomer who seems to always fall for the wrong girl. When he finds happiness, however, the audience can’t help but root for him. It’s exciting to see the kid from “Angels in the Outfield” has grown up to achieve something more than expected.

Following the recent, unexpected death of John Hughes, the film is quite similar to his style in its presentation of love in it’s sometimes more painful ways. In one scene, Tom tries to get Summer’s attention by playing The Smiths’ “Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want” to no avail. The scene is very Hughes-ian, using both a song used in Hughes’ “Pretty in Pink,” and in its depiction of the Tom’s painful search for attention.

Luckily, these homages and references never steer toward the realm of knock-off, but show how a filmmaker can be influenced by another or others, and create their own visual representation of the anti-love story. The script is possibly one of the strongest and most inspiring written in the past few years as it is both commercial and independent at the same time.

A very exciting film, “(500) Days of Summer” seems as though it could pull off the impossible. It features an intellectual script, fantastical animated sequences and an honest depiction of the struggle between love vs. the relationship. “(500) Days of Summer” is basically a Woody Allen film for those who hate Woody Allen. A standout film, possibly the best of the summer, you’ll be wishing you could fall in love with “Summer” over and over again.

Grade: A

Sorry I haven’t been writing a lot this summer, I’ve been preoccupied. Its weird coming out of college and finding that I don’t have the time I thought I’d have because of all the other work I’d be doing. But I need to write about film, it’s my aphrodisiac. It helps me. So I’m getting back on track and will be writing even more now. For now, I have three quick reviews of films I saw earlier this summer. Enjoy!

Up

Pixar’s tenth feature, another major animated achievement, proves that the little production company that could is now the best thing to happen to the first decade of this century. “Up” features Ed Asner as the voice of the curmudgeonly widower/balloon salesman Carl Fredricksen who, after losing his zest-for-life wife Ellie faces the threat to lose his home. Carl attaches a gigantic bouquet of balloons to his little house and flies away to he and Ellie’s dream home in the wilds of South America. Little does h know, the enthusiastic young wilderness explorer Russell, who has been bugging him about needed to assist the elderly for his final merit badge, has stowed away accidentally on Carl’s front porch. The fated duo are stuck together and along with a group of talking dogs, a grizzled old explorer, a gigantic endangered bird and Michael Giacchino’s fantastic score, they have the adventure of a lifetime.

Carl, who lost everything when he lost Ellie, finds the love of adventure in being a father figure to Russell. They inspire each other, and have the capacity to inspire audiences of all ages to not let this magnificent world around us go to waste. “Up” is unquestionably moving, and at many times gloriously funny. While the characters of Carl and Russell are inspiring and funny, it is screenwriter/director’s Pete Docter and Bob Peterson’s creation of the character of Ellie who steals the show. While Ellie dies in the first ten minutes of the film, she is present throughout the entire picture – transformed metaphorically into the floating, omnipresent house. Carl speaks to the house as he would Ellie, a reminder to those who’ve lost loved ones that they never leave us, no matter how hard it may feel.

On a personal level, I lost my grandfather this year which made watching this film a little bittersweet yet reminded me of the grand adventure he had with life.

The only problem “Up” faces is a bit of screenwriter’s fatigue. The story is unnecessarily clichéd. We’ve seen this adventure flick before, and while Docter and Peterson obviously were interested in making an homage to some of their favorites – it misses the mark of originality that has made Pixar the leader in screenwriting for more than a decade.

Otherwise, “Up” is most certainly one of the best films of the year – one that, like every other Pixar film, will be watched over and over for years to come. An inspiration to any kid from age 5 to 95, “Up” greatest advise comes from its greatest character. Ellie’s last message to Carl is one of the best – “Thanks for the adventure. Now go have your own.”

Grade: A-

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian

The first “Night at the Museum” film was just pure fun fantasy, a B-level movie that took theme park adventure and made it into a nice little hour-and-a-half family package. Ben Stiller proved he had mettle for kids’ fare, and the movie made the money it deserved. It was exceptionally good, but retained a “watch-ability” and was good for even younger kids.

Three years later, Stiller has returned to his night watchman uniform and, with flashlight in hand he is back on duty. This time, actually, Stiller’s Larry Daley has become something of a Ron Popeil knock-off – creating household gadgets like the Glow-in-the-Dark Flashlight, the Unloseable Keyring, and the Oversized Dogbone (all inspired by his work at the museum). He has turned his back on the museum and has become an overnight success. However, during a quick stroll through memory lane Larry finds out that the museum is being renovated and that digital projections will be replacing the models and statues that had once inhabited the magical halls of his former employer. Larry’s “friends,” some of history’s most famous figures are shipped to the Washington to live forever in the archives of the Smithsonian.

The sequel basically takes the spectacle of the first movie, the fact that an ancient stone tablet enables the museum to come to life at night, and multiplies it by transporting the stone to an even larger venue. Rejoining Larry in this film are some of history’s favorites such as Sacagawea (Mizuo Peck), Teddy Roosevelt (again played by Robin Williams) and Dexter the Capuchin Monkey and along for the adventure this time are famed figures like Custer (Bill Hader), Albert Einstein (voiced by Eugene Levy, as a bunch of bobble-heads) and Amelia Earhart (Amy Adams). The second film does provide much more in terms of laughs and exciting adventure, yet doesn’t really have a strong message to boot. The first film had a great message, to believe the unbelievable and to believe in oneself. The second film has more of a, “don’t be a jerk who only sees dollar signs,” kind of a message. It’s a good message, but it doesn’t really fit well with the fantastical nature of the movie itself.

The one aspect this movie has that the first film doesn’t is the unmatched talent of Adams as the spunky, high-spirited Earhart. Every moment Adams is on screen is better than the last. Adams is taking her time right now as an actress to prove her incredible range. She’s proven she’s funny (“Junebug”) and she’s proven she can do extraordinary dramatic work (“Doubt”), but now she’s testing out new genres and succeeding at every step.

“Night at the Museum 2: Battle at the Smithsonian” is proof that summer blockbusters don’t have to have huge explosions or a glistening, sweaty Megan Fox to make a good fantastical and fun film. While it doesn’t hold the ranks with the best family films of all time, it is still a lot of fun and something you can share happily with children of any age. And hey, you might learn something, too!

Grade: B+

The Hangover

Every year, we are “sprung” with comedy “sleeper hits” that make big bags of cash and are hailed as the greatest comedies of our time. In 2007, we had “Superbad.” The next year it was, “Tropic Thunder.” It’s not that those films weren’t funny, it’s that this so-called “sleeper hit” theory is getting a little tiresome. Those films, along with this year’s sleeper hit “The Hangover,” were highly advertised and were planned hit films.

However, “The Hangover” is without a doubt the funniest (although not the most original) movies of the three previously mentioned comedies. The film tells the story of four morons who, over the course of one night in Vegas to celebrate the upcoming marriage of their friend Doug (Justin Bartha), lose complete control and … well, things get a little crazy. Three of the friends, sans Doug, wake up the next morning and find that, among the Tiger snoozing in their hotel bathroom – they might have gone a little far into the deep end of Sin City the night before. The extremely hung over guys, including the overconfident Phil (Bradley Cooper), the tightly wound Stu (Ed Helms) and the dimwitted Alan (Zach Galifianakis), find themselves in a pickle when they can’t find their buddy. In a bid to find their friend and to find out what happened during their night of debauchery, the three dudes make their way through the strip and learn that what happens in Vegas … shouldn’t happen in Vegas.

The film is, without a doubt, one of the funnier films in the past few years – an admirable film, especially since the name Apatow is not affiliated with it at all. Directed by Todd Phillips (“Old School”), the script is consistent is its jokes as it is in its lack of original story or plot. The movie is really just a vehicle for its incredibly talented stars, most of which the incredibly riotous Galifianakis. After making his way up through the ranks by touring with other comedians like Patton Oswalt and Brian Posehn, Galifianakis has finally gotten his big break with the character of Alan and “The Hangover.” It’d be incredibly exciting, as I’ve been a big fan of Galifianakis for years, to see this film result in both a possible Golden Globe nom and in many future endeavors. It would be unfortunate, however, to see this role become his typecast.

One of the major problems with the film is the unfortunate performance of Ed Helms. The character is painfully cliched and Helms’ over the top efforts are often embarrassing. While he does have his moments (an intermission-esque song is actually one of the more memorable scenes), Helms could have done better.

The film is quite funny, although isn’t one of the “greatest comedies of all time.” It’s good to see Galifiankis getting some credit, and equally exciting to see Cooper finding his way to leading man status – but “The Hangover” isn’t much more than the result of a screenwriter’s idea to bank on Vegas’ popular tourist slogan. While a second film is already in the works, at least one can say that it won’t be a sleeper hit.

Grade: B

John Hughes has always been a huge influence on me. His work in film from the genius of “Sixteen Candles” and “Uncle Buck” to the perfection of “Ferris Bueller” and “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”, inspired an entire generation of filmmakers and filmgoers. I had always wished he would come back, but that will never be I guess. John Hughes, you will be very missed.

I know I don’t often put up upcoming movie images or trailers anymore, but this is the film I’ve been waiting years for. This is the film Wes announced he would be working on before “The Darjeeling Limited” and after “The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.” I love both of those films (along with his earlier masterpieces), and I couldn’t wait to see his interpretation of a work that wasn’t his own original screenplay. This is new ground for Mr. Anderson, and with the voice talents of Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe, Adrien Brody, Brian Cox, Anjelica Huston, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Michael Gambon, Roman Coppola and two new members of Anderson’s repertoire, George Clooney and Meryl Streep – this could be another masterwork for the hugely talented auteur. Here’s looking forward to November 13! Click images for larger view.

Images Courtesy of aintitcool.com

One of the greatest performers of the 20th century, Mr. Karl Malden, has passed away at the age of 97.  I’ll always remember Malden for his incredibly moving performance as Father Barry in Kazan’s “On the Waterfront.” Never since has a character of such moral strength mixed with embittered humanity been portrayed so beautifully.  He was amazing on screen with Brando, and even though he won the Oscar for “A Streetcar Named Desire,” it’s his work with Kazan and Brando that always astounds me. We will miss you Karl.

Homer Simpson: How do you do that thing with your feet?
Leon Kompowsky: You mean the moonwalk?
Homer Simpson: No, that thing with your feet.

This is incredibly interesting news. I haven’t posted news in a long time as I’ve been focusing more on writing criticisms and reviews (I’ll have them up soon, after I see what is being considered the abomination that is “Transformers 2″).

But the fact that the AMPAS is going to expand their best picture nominations to a whopping ten is fairly intriguing. Will there be ten films worthy of nominations? Will this change the politics of the Academy itself? For fans of the Oscars, this is huge news – for the huge percentage of Americans who don’t care about the Oscars, this could be hit or miss. Had ten noms been in the rule book last year, “The Dark Knight” would have been a contender and ratings would shoot through the roof. Is the Academy extending the noms to let in more films like TDK? For now, nobody knows.

Here’s the original Variety article for your reading pleasure:

Oscar expands best pic noms to 10
Ganis announces change to Academy Awards
By CYNTHIA LITTLETON

Oscar is opening up his playing field in a big way next year.

The Motion Picture Academy announced Wednesday that for the first time in more than 65 years, the field of best picture nominees will be expanded to 10 contenders for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

“Having 10 best picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize,” said Acad prexy Sid Ganis in announcing the shift. “I can’t wait to see what that list of 10 looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”

The last time the Oscar race featured 10 best pic contenders was the 16th annual contest in 1943, when “Casablanca” emerged with the top prize. There were 10 best pic noms for most of the Academy Awards’ first decade. In 1935 there was a bumper crop of 12 nominees.

Acad’s decision will undoubtedly add heat to next year’s Oscar campaigning, especially in a year when no obvious front-runners have emerged in the first half. The move also comes on the heels of biz complaints that the Acad’s rule of limiting the pic nominees to the top five vote-getters elbows out some of the more popular titles, such as last year’s B.O. champ “The Dark Knight.”

Oscar noms will be announced Feb. 2 with the awards handed out March 7 at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood.

It has happened again – the rebirth of an established series that has gone sour and is born anew in the hands of a master craftsman. First it was the new age of Batman with Christopher Nolan’s dual magnum opuses and now, for both a generation of old Trekkies/Trekkers and a whole new era of fans, director J.J. Abrams has brought his reboot of “Star Trek”, simply titled as such, to the screen. “Star Trek” is a major science fiction achievement – a real surprise treat with an exceptional cast led by an electric performance by Chris Pine as Kirk. So far, it’s one of the best films of the year.

For those who aren’t caught up in the series – it doesn’t technically matter. This film starts at the very beginning. Prefacing with the birth of Kirk and then transitioning into the two parallel stories of Kirk and Spock’s childhood, Abrams engages us immediately into the story.

Young Kirk (Jimmy Bennett) is introduced as a rebel, the kind who takes his stepfather’s sports car out for a joy ride and crash test, whereas young Spock (Jacob Kogan of “Joshua”) is presented as the incredibly intelligent Vulcan who is constantly in a struggle with his half-human self. The two grow up and into fully fleshed out characters. Spock (“Heroes” Zachary Quinto) has become somewhat bitter of his reputation as an incomplete Vulcan, and Kirk (now played by Pine) has grown up to become a charismatic cad with a knack for bar fights. After one particular bar fight, Kirk meets Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood), who opens the door to Starfleet, and to his future.

The plot centers around the formation of the first crew of the NCC 1701, and their fight against their first foe – the time-traveling villain Nero (a magnetic Eric Bana), hell bent on revenge against future Spock (a scene-stealing Leonard Nimoy), whom he blames for the destruction of his home planet of Romulus.

Along for the ride are classic characters such as linguistics officer Nyota Uhura (Zoë Saldana), helmsman Hikaru Sulu (John Cho), ensign Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin) and the oft-complaining (“I’m a doctor, not a physicist!”) Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban). The cast is excellent. Each member of the crew is in perfect form, each a glorious rendition of beloved characters that in some ways make them more interesting than the originals. Most impressive of this particular group is Urban, who injects a much-needed dose of humor and steals every scene he’s in.

A pleasant surprise is the inclusion of Simon Pegg (“Shaun of the Dead,” “Spaced”) as the brilliant engineer Montgomery Scott a.k.a. Scotty. In the original series, Scotty wasn’t a cause of comic relief, he just became an effect. Over time, as Scotty’s dire situations became oddly familiar each time, his role became written with a comedic tone. This tone is utilized with terrific comic timing by Pegg who never takes it over-the-top.

The star of the film is undoubtedly its captain. Pine doesn’t re-imagine Kirk, nor does an impression of William Shatner. Instead, Pine’s Kirk is a more charming leader and something of an accidental hero. Pine’s depiction is raw – a force of nature. He’s a leader you can follow, who has flaws anyone can identify with, most importantly the control of ones ego. Pine fleshes out the character of Kirk in a way no one could expect anyone other than Shatner could. This film will make Pine a star, and deservedly so.

As for the portrayal of Spock, who is unquestionably the most popular science fiction character of all time, Quinto’s performance is admirable. One can nitpick at the fact that Spock is portrayed with too much emotion – but through most of the film, Quinto tones it down enough for us. The biggest problem with the film is personal. One subplot added by Abrams is a love interest between Spock and Uhura – a notion never suggested in “Trek” canon. This may not perturb non-fans, but as a lifelong devotee of the series – it was a little odd to see the two characters become intimate.

But these are just little petty complaints from a quibbling fan. In fact, this critic doesn’t really care about the changes. In fact, after this film – I welcome change. The main plot runs along the idea that this is a completely new timeline as affected by the plotting of Nero. So, in actual fact, everything event-wise is altered – the only remaining aspect of the original canon is that of characterization, which everyone basically nails.

A new timeline is exactly what “Star Trek” needed to do. Hardcore fans may be in an uproar about it, but they should be excited rather than upset. This opens the door to a whole new series. Abrams “Star Trek” is an excellent film. The special effects are eye-popping, the technology is intriguing, the music is superb (and memorable), the script is both comic and fun and again, the cast is perfect. If Abrams had bombed, “Star Trek” would be a dead series. Instead, fellow Trekkies and Trekkers can now celebrate that their love has been reborn again as a pop culture icon that can permeate into a whole new legion of people who would have never given the likes of Kirk and Spock a chance. Hopefully, those who aren’t familiar with the series before seeing this new film will be influenced to watch the rest that “Trek” history has to offer.

One fun thing about Abrams movie is its non-exploitative usage of famous lines and aspects of the show in his new film as “easter eggs” for traditional fans – a red shirt dies on an outing, young Spock sports green blood after a fight, Sulu wields a sword and supposedly, even a tribble makes an appearance. One bittersweet feature is the usage of the late Majel Barrett Roddenberry’s voice as the computer.

This is a very exciting time in “Trek” history. The only question is not if another film will be made – but when? Abrams has a responsibility to uphold the reputation of this film to return for a second – it would be like throwing everything away (i.e. Bryan Singer not returning for the third “X-men”). Will Abrams boldly go where no one has gone before and turn “Trek” into the film series it deserves to be, or will he just boldly blow?

Grade: A

It’s always the worst experiences in life that make us who we are. In “Adventureland,” a group of college students find that the worst job they could have ever imagined – a deplorable carnival, where the corn dogs are smarter than the guests – might actually be the best time of their entire lives.

Jesse Eisenberg (“The Squid and the Whale”) stars as James Brennan, a recent college graduate, excited to move to a New York apartment and his postgraduate work at Columbia. Unfortunately, after his alcoholic father gets demoted, James must find a summer job. Having never been employed in a real job, and being a fresh-faced college graduate, James is quite naïve when it comes to job hunting – often showing up with SAT scores and high expectations for the most menial of interviews.

Eventually, James gets a job at Adventureland as a game operator. His new co-workers include his bizarre married couple bosses Bobby (Bill Hader) and Paulette (Kristen Wiig), the introverted yet bitingly sarcastic Joel (Martin Starr), the crotch-punching obsessed Frigo (Matt Bush) the local celebrity/maintenance worker Connell (Ryan Reynolds) and most importantly, the strangely alluring, but psychologically imbalanced Em (Kristen Stewart). He quickly becomes friends with all his fellow carnies, as they all have two very similar interests – they all hate Adventureland, and they all smoke a lot of weed.

The film is director Greg Mottola’s third major feature, after 1996’s “The Daytrippers” starring Liev Schreiber and Parker Posey, and 2007’s hit “Superbad,” which starred Jonah Hill and Michael Cera. While the latter film had its unquestionably side-splitting moments and birthed the iconic “Mclovin,” in comparison – “Adventureland” proves a much more mature film. Mottola based a lot of the storyline on his own personal experiences at the real Adventureland in Farmingdale, N.Y.

For Mottola, “Adventureland” is an intriguing step for the up-and-coming writer/director. The film is far from perfect, and isn’t particularly memorable – but it is a refreshing indie feature.

The film proves quite personal, which, unlike the often sophomoric and often awkward “Superbad,” makes the film more enjoyable. “Adventureland” has a very clichéd story – James falls head over heels in love with Em, they get together, and then break up, and then get back together again. All the pieces are very familiar, but it’s Mottola’s flair for building his characters as realistic, flawed characters that make them endearing.

The character of James is a very well-written – the post-college graduate who’s finally learning about the so-called “real world.” He’s the sensitive type – always listening to The Velvet Underground’s “Pale Blue Eyes” on repeat, and even throughout college, he kept his virginity in check. His inexperience in life dismisses characteristic idealism and when he finally achieves coming-of-age, his realizations are genuinely heartwarming. He wishes he had all of life’s answers, but doesn’t – and his experiences at something as socially degrading as Adventureland help him find that he’s not as great as he had always thought. His suburban daydream is thrown away, like one of the many half-eaten Adventureland corn dogs.

In the role of James, Eisenberg is excellent. While his performance in “The Squid and the Whale” was a terrific lead debut, like James, he is finally maturing as an actor. His naïveté displayed in “Adventureland” is sensational, and Eisenberg is quietly joining the ranks of a new underground of twentysomething indie actors, and has a lot more potential for future films.

The supporting cast is also superb. Stewart, who has already achieved Hollywood status with last year’s hit “Twilight,” does an excellent job in portraying Em’s personal struggles. Also impressive is Reynolds, who, after being typecast in the past few years (he’s often played the same character since “Van Wilder”), shows a vulnerable side.

Although the film is unlike “Superbad,” it still packs, albeit more subtly, a comic punch due to its skilled comic relief. Hader and Wiig, two current cast members of “Saturday Night Live,” are hilarious in their roles as the eccentric carnival owners. However, the most memorable performance in the film comes from Starr, who portrays the dorky Joel as a layered, tragic character. In addition to the depth of the character, Starr utilizes terrific comic timing, often stealing many scenes with his amusing one-liners. In one particular scene, Joel is operating a game in which guests can attempt to throw a baseball to knock off hats worn by rotating mannequins. The game is fixed, of course, and when the guest fails – even after a direct shot – he protests that Joel is cheating to which the sardonic operator retorts, “Yet his chapeau remains!”

While the film does have its comic moments, it really works best in the coming-of-age genre. Unfortunately, “Adventureland” has been heavily advertised as a teen sex romp in the vein of its more conventionally comedic predecessor. As for Mottola, his next project is the much anticipated reteaming of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (of “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” fame) in the comedy tentatively titled “Paul.” Whether you’re looking for a few laughs, or just a nice little nostalgic trip – a trip to “Adventureland” is certainly worth the price of admission. Just don’t eat the corn dogs.

Grade: A-

Originally published in Framingham State College’s The Gatepost