Directed by Miguel Arteta

Starring Michael Cera, Portia Doubleday, Jean Smart, Zach Galifiniakis, and Ray Liotta

Albert’s Take:
LOVE SURREALLY

My first test for any comedy is, it has to make me laugh (obviously). A close second is, those laughs have to come with a semblance of purpose.

Miguel Arteta’s “Youth in Revolt” passes the first, but fails or outright defies the second, depending on who you ask: It’s as arbitrary, as whimsical and, yes, as pointless a comedy as any I’ve seen.

It starts out normally enough, with Michael Cera yet again reprising the luckless, loveless teen. He’s Nick Twisp — weak chin, round shoulders, a penchant for wearing too-short sleeves that show his grasshopper arms to disadvantage. He lands in a lakeside mobile home for the summer, and he’d like nothing more than to lose his virginity with Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday), the belle of the trailer park.

So it’s a teen-sex-comedy-as-coming-of-age movie — fine. Every decade needs one. And this one gears up to be even sharper and sweeter than most, with its off-the-wall dialogue and goose-pimpling chemistry between Doubleday, who’s as believably sexual as an underage character’s allowed to be, and Cera, who, like Owen Wilson or Steve Zahn, has a way of turning every line of dialogue into part and parcel of his own comedic language.

But not long after the first act, right about where the hero invents an imaginary evil twin to help him get the girl, the movie goes off the rails, never to return.

Consider some of its elements: three animated sequences — one in clay, one in drawings, one in simulated paper cutouts. Cross-dressing. Religious fanatics. Hallucinogenic mushrooms. A goth prep-school girl. An attempt to stage a suicide. Not one, but two sidekicks, one of them a Briton of Indian descent who’s fluent in French.

Maybe there’s a way to make all of these pieces fit into the same movie. But if Arteta knows how, he’s keeping it a secret.

I laughed plenty, I won’t lie — Cera is a talented comic actor in any circumstances, apparently, and the supporting cast is strong. But just as often as I laughed, I rolled my eyes. “Youth in Revolt” is an interesting miss, but a miss nonetheless.

2 out of 5

Don’s take:
GOOD WHERE IT COUNTS

I could talk about how out of place the quirky animations felt and how they were more of a distraction than strong point of the film. I could talk about how the story didn’t set up the alter ego in an even remotely believable way. Honestly, these are thoughts that came up periodically as I watched this movie. But Youth In Revolt is a romantic comedy, and when it comes to romantic comedy, I am usually forgiving so long as a few points are hit: I laugh, I like the central couple, and I believe they can be in love. And its not as easy a task as it seems. With Youth, I wasn’t challenged, but Cera and Doubleday are a lot of fun to watch together, and I laughed heartily. In the end, despite its problems, it turned out to be a pretty dang good time at the movies, but far from transcendent.

3 out of 5

And now we bring you another round of….
THE 180 DEGREE RULE

Don: You know, I don’t disagree with anything you say in your review. In fact, these are a lot of the thoughts I had while watching the movie. The insertion of the alter-ego is totally arbitrary in a way that you can’t call artistic license. But in the end, I couldn’t deny that I was entertained.

Albert: I was too. But I found that the laughs came between long spells of noodling. The movie was shapeless and pointless and random. I couldn’t figure out if it was insulting my intelligence or just flipping me the bird.

Don: I don’t sense that Arteta was being smug here; he was just shooting for “Juno” and missed. He made a smart casting choice though choosing Cera and finding Portia Double-Day. With these two in the cast, at times, the film reminded me a little of “The Lake” episodes of the Wonder Years, which is a good thing.

Albert: Yeah, I thought the same! I actually thought Arteta was spoofing the whole “endless summer” cliche, setting us up with the washed-out, overexposed ’70s-style nature photography. I guess I admire his gall in obliterating any expectations we may have had after that first act. But I wanted unity, some structure. Am I just being old-fashioned here?

Don: Not at all. Coherence never goes out of fashion. I think this movie is a good example of how less is more. I think this movie would have been better without the animations and possibly even without Cera’s alter-ego character.

Albert: That Francois — an underfed Tyler Durden, didn’t you think? I think when an imaginary evil twin is only a supporting character, that’s a pretty good sign that your screenplay needs some whittling.

Don: Haha, yeah. Of course Tyler Durden came to mind, but you know what this movie really reminded me of? Me, Myself, and Irene. But yes, Arteta really needed to either take the alter-ego out, or make it more central to the story. As it was, while sometimes funny, it was ultimately pointless.

Albert: I was sure you’d look forward to this movie because Miguel Arteta directed another one you liked, “Chuck and Buck.” Can you compare the two?

Don: Yes! Chuck and Buck – a sadly overlooked movie. Not quite a masterpiece, but very very interesting. It dealt with a bizarre story with a level of thought you wouldn’t expect. You can tell Arteta was interested in the characters in a way that he doesn’t exhibit here in Youth.

 Powered by Max Banner Ads