The following was sent in response to Scene's review of Adventureland ("Superboring," by Robert Ignizio). It was signed with a fake name, as is often the case when someone not only disagrees with a review but feels the need to skewer the critic personally. We usually don't publish these, but this reader put so much time and thought into his response, and seems so genuinely offended by our review, that we felt it deserved some recognition. So here it is, in its typo-ridden glory:

f5ef/1239139693-adventureland.jpgI read your review, obviously, you're an idiot who went to this movie hoping for Superbad, lured in by a deceptive trailer, made by studio execs worrying about getting the underage kids into a slow weekend. You were hoping for something "fresh and funny" which would explore the "carny mileau." Most likely you're of the generation of hipsters that get arm sleeve tattoos, now that youthful mistakes are surgucally removable, and gets a charge off the idea of some long-lost white-trash Americana as an ethnic culture. You drink ironice beer at the Garage, while sporting mutton chop side burns. You'll be the type of sucker the tralier was designed for, bored teens and young adults hoping for another whacky comedy, disappointingly seearching for Seth Ropgen in the credits and disappointed in a sound track that isn't retro-eighties metal.

How do I know this? I saw the same trailer, pushed down my throat at half a dozen other movies and luckily went to the same movie. Adventureland was a movie that so perfectly captured a point in time and space, I almost went home and bit the barrel of a gun. While you were waiting for yet another over-the-top teen sex comedy, I was watching a perfectly sculpted slice of life, a tender little love story. A story I found devoid of most of the "omantic cliches"and not remotely a "tire coming of age" plot. What you saw as a tired plot, I saw as realism. How many movies actually have flawed characters like these? Where are the typical proclamations of fate and cutesy meetings? Where was the surety of everything turning out well, the obviously bad bad people the heroes shouldn't love, and the deux ex machina ending that would save both the hero's love life and his guarentee his future?

Let us start with the time and the setting. in the mid-eighties, i worked in a second rate amusement park in the rust belt. While the movie one was opbviously a third or fourth rate one, it easily and probably was one of geauga lake's sister parks such as Conneaut. This is why I was so offended by your claims that the movie missed it's mark, because I know it did not. I lived it The movie perfectly captured the feeling of living in a once industrial town at the end of a long recession that never seemed to quite end, in the backwaters of the Midwest. Growing up with the knowledge that your only real hope for a better life was to get the hell out. Searching for work in a one-time great region, once famous for plentiful, labor-intensive jobs and not even being able to score fast food scut work, without knowing someone. Having your parents turn out to not be the supermen of the uppe-class, but flawed humans who have lives that didn't turn out like the 50s suit wearing world had dreamed. Even the college experience of losing your naivete as to your true social status in the world is here. That encounter with the true upper class which will always be able to afford Europe and the reality fo your place in the professional middle class, well-off as long as the work holds out.

Scroll to read more Cleveland News articles


Join Cleveland Scene Newsletters

Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.