Without Kristen Stewart, Adventureland would be unbearable. With her, it is still a major disappointment. Everyone seems to be giving this thing good reviews – what am I missing here?

First off, in a  movie like this music is very important. They had some decent music, but sadly the filmmaker really does not know how to use it in the film. He should study 13 Going On 30 as an example of how to use a pop soundtrack to underscore the emotions in a film. They make liberal use of the music for cheap humor (e.g. Rock Me Amadeus) throughout the film, and you absolutely cannot do this if you are also going to use music to underscore emotion and create atmosphere. You either take the music seriously or your don’t – there’s no easy middle ground.

Second, the writing is just flat. It’s not funny and it is not deep or even interesting. It could have been, maybe, but that would have required a completely revamped storyline, and an entirely different approach to the humor. Everyone clapped at the end when I saw it, but there were very few instances where the audience actually laughed out loud, so what were they clapping about? The depth of its message? What message!? It’s like puff-pastry … puff pastry that is two-days-stale. For humor it clings to obvious and uninspired ideas – the “giant-ass panda” shtick runs through the whole film even though it feels old by the third iteration, the baseball bat scene from the previews feels stuck in there out of desperation. As for the endless “jokes” about the penny-pinching park managers: toward the end of the film I’m thinking “why do we care, at THIS point in the film, that they are gluing eyes on bananas to pass out as prizes?” It’s like the filmmakers have no sense how to regulate the flow and concentration of humor as a film develops. As a comic piece, this film is completely confused. As a drama, it is an empty vessel.

Then there is the unbelievability factor. I did not believe that Kristen Stewart was a NYU college student (she’s still fun to watch though), that Jessie Eisenberg was some hot-shot future ivy-league grad student, that the geeky nerd with glasses was some profound scholar of whatever he was a scholar of,  that the manager of the fun park was a park manager, none of it! They all seemed like hopeless stoners going nowhere, frankly, which is kind of what they were. I didn’t even believe that Lisa P. was a creature of the 80’s (her jaw-line screams generation Y.) Come to think of it, none of them look like people from the 1980’s; go back and watch Say Anything, or Pretty in Pink, or Sixteen Candles and see for yourself how close they got. In fact, the only person that struck me as at all believable was the weirdo that kept punching Jessie Eisenberg in the balls.

The much-despised Ryan Reynolds is, as always, appealing and solidly good, even if he is a bit miscast and struggling (as they all did) with a poorly written role. I think he is too subtle for most professional movie reviewers, who tend to prefer over-the-top hacks like Robert Downey Jr. where it’s all totally in your face. Reynolds has a very pleasing energy on screen, good subtle comic timing, and a nice restrained approach to his craft. Put me down as a fan!

Then there are the leads. Kristen Stewart can uplift almost any piece of trash that she gets involved in, but there are limits to her powers to save bad films. As for Jessie Eisenberg, his performance just didn’t work for me. I don’t know if it was him or the director or the material, but I think it was the last two.

At least it has a happy ending, but that doesn’t save it.