Bye-Bye to PARKS AND REC: The Last Great TV Comedy

PARKS AND RECREATION - Goodbye to the Last Great TV Comedy

- With tonight's series finale of Parks and Recreation, it truly is the end of an era. Parks is the last of its breed - the last broadcast network sitcom that tried to bring edgy, Millennial-friendly comedy to the mainstream. Parks is perhaps the most beloved low-rated sitcom ever - in the grand tradition of The Office, 30 Rock, and Community - all NBC shows that had increasingly small on-air audiences, even if their actual fanbases were much larger. Sure, there are some spiritual successors to Parks out there in TV land. Brooklyn Nine-Nine is the most obvious - it is, after all, from Parks and Rec's Michael Schur (along with Dan Goor). And that show has found solid ratings success on Sunday nights. The Goldbergs on ABC is another potential successor - a family sitcom that combines very traditional sitcom tropes with a surreal and subversive, pop-culture-obsessed streak. But mostly, the best comedy these days is on cable, where it is increasingly able to get weird and niche-y. I love the likes of Broad City, Nathan For You, and Garfunkel and Oates. But those shows are going for very specific audiences. In theory, Parks should have been the biggest comedy of the last ten years. It was jam-packed with a great cast of diverse characters, and had a ton of heart. Parks' humor was razor-sharp, but it was also unabashedly earnest and sweet. It wasn't about off-putting well-off LA one-percenters (hello, Modern Family). It was about hard-working small-town Americans. And in an age of political divisiveness and gridlock, Parks and Rec was a constant reminder of our potential to put aside our differences and work together towards a common goal. Like I said, the fact that this *wasn't* the #1-rated comedy on TV speaks to the reality that no comedy is mainstream anymore. With most shows, I get it. But Parks was so funny, so good, so heartfelt, so universal in its themes that you have to wonder if, upon its end, we'll ever see the likes of it again.

Parks and Rec didn't start out amazing. In a strangely similar fashion as its predecessor, The Office, Parks' first season got out of the gate wobbly. Amy Poehler's Leslie Knope was, well, sort of annoying. And the focus on her undermined the stellar supporting cast. But like The Office, Parks came into its own in Season 2. The show became more of an ensemble comedy, and what an ensemble it was. If the show were launching today, it would have the all-star cast of all-star casts. Amy Poehler, Nick Offerman, Chris Pratt, Aubrey Plaza, Rob Lowe, Rashida Jones, Aziz Ansari, Retta, Adam Scott ... and the list goes on.

I heard someone say that the characters on Parks were so perfect because it was as if each represented a certain part of our personality. We all have aspects of these characters inside of us. Leslie is the ambitious go-getter. Ron Swanson the stubborn iconoclast. Andy the big kid. April the sarcastic teenager. Ben the nerd, Tom the would-be player. Jerry/Larry/Gary the loser-dork. There's that, but what makes Parks' characters so fantastic is that, at the same time, none could be reduced to one-note cliches. Leslie was a go-getter, but also a devoted friend who put her BFF Anne above all else. Ron Swanson was a stoic man's man, but he also moonlighted (hilariously) as local jazz legend Duke Silver, and had a kryptonite-like weakness for his ex-wife Tammy. Andy and April seemed polar opposites, but both found joy in each other and became a delightfully oddball couple. Tom, it turned out, was a romantic at heart. Hell, even Jerry was revealed to have an insanely idyllic home life that completely contrasted with his sad-sack reputation in the workplace. Parks never shied away from contradictions and complexity - and showing how and why these characters worked so well together despite their differences.

My favorite example - the one that to me is the heart and soul of the show - is the relationship between Leslie and Ron. Vulture published an essay a few weeks ago about how Ron represented the last gasp of the old man's-man stereotype, how he was the last of a dying breed. I argued that the essay missed the point. What's so brilliant about the Ron Swanson character is that he has his very strong likes and dislikes - he's got a freaking "Pyramid of Success" - but he also was never beholden to outdated views if those views were ugly or mean-spirited. Sure, Ron Swanson doesn't like Europe or skim milk. But he also is a man who sort of transcends specific politics. He likes what he likes. But not because of any ulterior motive or agenda. And that means that when push comes to shove, he admires Leslie's drive and fire and friendship. It's why the "Ron and Leslie" episode in Parks' final season, in which the feuding pair is locked in a room together and forced to hash out their problems - is such a legitimate tearjerker. The show brilliantly led us to believe that the rift that had formed between Ron and Leslie during the two-year gap between Seasons 6 and 7 was about clashing politics. But the real reason behind it was heartbreakingly revealed to be Ron's feeling that his unlikely friend Leslie - wrapped up in her new job - had left him behind.

But even when Parks does have its characters disagree on politics, the disagreements have a purity to them that is inspiring. Ron and Leslie often have different philosophies on government - but again, those views come from a pure place. The political fights on Parks would often see Leslie and Ron united - because it wasn't about Democrat vs. Republican vs. Libertarian - Leslie's battles were about smarts vs. stupidity, integrity vs. shiftiness and hucksterism, community vs. homogenization, and sticking up for friends and family. It's no wonder then that Leslie and Ron were ultimately on the same side when push came to shove.

Aside from all that, from a sheer comedy perspective, Parks is a bar-setter. I don't know all of the behind-the-scenes people who made the show as sharp as it was. But what's amazing is how, over the years, I've discovered new comedy voices who were associated with the show. Sure, going in, comedy fans knew creators Greg Daniel and Michael Schur's bonafides. And we knew Amy Poehler from years on SNL and Aziz Ansari from his stand-up. But aside even from the breakout cast members like Aubrey Plaza and Chris Pratt, we've seen people like Megan Amram, a writer on the show, become a cult comedy favorite. And tragically, one of the show's Co-EP's - Harris Wittels - a guy who was by all accounts the show's go-to joke puncher-upper, and an emerging stand-up comedian and comedy writer - passed away last week. One only needs to look at Wittels' Twitter to see what an incredibly hilarious voice was lost. But his ability to nail jokes and joke construction - and just the overall talent of the writing staff - was evident on any given episode of Parks. Amazingly, the show is going out sharper than ever. This final season has been a veritable comedy master-class. Each episode is jam-packed with instant-classic quotes and perfectly-constructed jokes. The comedy has been able to swing from character humor to parody (as in the impressively unique Johnny Karate episode from last week), from pop-culture references to absurdism. And yet ... I (and suspect many of you) have been left misty-eyed by nearly every episode this season. To be that funny and that emotionally-involving is a rare feat for any show to pull off.

And that's why I say Parks and Rec might just be the last great comedy. There's something to be said for comedy that doesn't have to swing for the fences, that can just be what it wants to be and get as weird as it wants to. I love that stuff. But there's also something to be said for comedy that can be funny and smart and challenging, but also have the characters and heart and real-world relatability to ensure that there's something there for everyone. It's hard for me to imagine *anyone* giving Parks and Rec a try and not digging it. But increasingly, the Parks-esque shows are disappearing from the air. They're becoming watered down like Modern Family. Or going to Netflix (Tina Fey's upcoming Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt) or the web (Community's upcoming sixth season). And as that happens, comedy won't need to appeal to a broad audience anymore. There's a part of that that's cool, sure. But there's also something sad about the end of shows that unite us in laughter, just as the characters on Parks were united around their beloved town of Pawnee. That sense of community is evaporating - we're all separating off into our little tribes where our super-specific tastes are catered to with web series and podcasts. And in that environment, you have to wonder if any show will again be able to be a true national-conversation starter again. Parks was never that show, but it was to a lot of the people that mattered. People who were smart and funny liked Parks. Parks people were my people. And it was watched by the funniest comedians and most important politicians (everyone from the Obamas to Joe Biden to John McCain - who cameo'd multiple times - were fans). The ending of Parks and Recreation makes me sad - it's the end of a great TV show, but also sort of the end of an era for TV. But as long as the spirit of Leslie Knope lives on, as long as Ron Swanson's Pyramid of Greatness hangs on college dorms and office cubicles, as long as we still reference DJ Roomba and Burt Macklin: FBI and JJ's Diner and the Cones of Dunshire and Jean Ralphio and Perd Hapley, then Parks and Rec will *literally* live on forever in Lil' Sebastian-esque fashion.

So long Parks and Rec. It's been an amazing, legendary run.

THE TO DO LIST Doesn't Quite Go All The Way

THE TO DO LIST Review:

- A few years ago, Bridesmaids inverted the usual Judd Apatowian formula and crafted a sweet-yet-raunchy comedy that also proved to be a big box office hit. Suddenly, the floodgates seemed open for gross-out comedies not explicitly told from the male point of view. And hey, to me, that's awesome. We've seen endless variations on the geeky-guy-pines-for-out-of-his-league-dream-girl story. Why not see what happens when you flip the template, and focus in on the good-girl valedictorian who wants to explore her inner wild-child? Psyched to see a group of smart and funny folks tackle this very subject matter, I went into THE TO DO LIST with pretty high expectations. In last year's Safety Not Guaranteed, Aubrey Plaza proved that she had the chops to be a great quirky-comedic leading lady. Throw her in an envelope-pushing hard-R movie alongside the likes of Bill Hader, Alia Shawkat, Donald Glover, Connie Britton, and Clark Gregg ... and I'm 100% onboard.

Unfortunately, as well-intentioned and as loaded with comedic talent as the movie is, it only occasionally scores big laughs. Good intentions, sadly, don't always equal hilarity - and the movie seems to struggle to define what kind of comedy it wants to be. The movie's spiritual successor definitely seems to be American Pie, but American Pie managed to capture a zeitgeisty tone that The To Do List seems to fumble to recapture.

The movie centers around recent high school grad Brandy Klark (Plaza), who made it through high school with barely an amorous encounter to her name - so focused was she on grades. Now, in the summer before the start of college, she's become smitten with a local, guitar-strumming alpha male named Rusty Waters (Scott Porter), who melts her heart with an acoustic rendition of Def Leppard's "Pour Some Sugar On Me," and who happens to be sharing a summer job as a lifeguard at a local pool. Determined to win the attention of Rusty, Brandy decides to work her way through a to-do list of sex acts so as to eventually be worthy for her older and more experienced object of lust. With the help of her two boy-crazy friends, Fiona (Shawkat) and Wendy (Sarah Steele), Brandy opens herself up (so to speak) to a multitude of new experiences - rounding the bases, if you will, before preparing herself to eventually go all the way. Of course, Brandy's single-minded pursuit causes some rifts with her friends, her family (her over-involved, over-sharing parents played by Britton and Gregg, and her prom-queen sister Amber - Rachel Bilson), and with her friend Cameron, who harbors a major crush.

Right off the bat, there's sort of an inherent dilemma in doing an apples-to-apples, gender-swapped inversion of the typical "She's Out of My League" type of story. Plaza may not be the typical young Hollywood starlet, but she's still an attractive woman whose character shouldn't have much trouble seducing any guy she sets her sights on - particularly the horn-dog Rusty. To the movie's credit, it becomes about much more than just the endgame. Instead, when a Brandy-Rusty hookup becomes an inevitability, it becomes a movie about women being boxed in as either the "virgin" or the "whore" (a problem that Brandy directly mentions). And it becomes a movie about Brandy having to choose either the geeky good-guy or the good-looking bad-boy. And it's about the unfairness of being forced into that choice (more a comment on other teen movies than any realistic sort of scenario). In between, Brandy semi-enthusiastically hooks up with just about every other male character in the movie, as part of her mission to complete the to-do list.

The problem is that THE TO DO LIST raises a couple of complex issues - acknowledging that it can't and won't simply be a female-centric version of American Pie - but never *really* tackles them in any meaningful or satisfactory way. The movie seems to want to say something about Brandy's behavior, but there are mixed messages, to say the least. It all climaxes (no pun intended ... okay, sort of intended) in a final act that is sort of off-putting. There seems to be a semi-conscious effort to subvert genre norms and not have Brandy do things just for the sake of pleasing the audience. But for that reason, the movie tends to have a bit of a mean streak. I mean, look, there's a reason why all those movies about awkward and geeky guys resonate - it's because the best ones seem to come from a real place of teenage trauma and pain. The To Do List rarely feels like it's tapping into anything real - it's more about the genre subversion for subversion's sake - and so it lacks a real sense of authenticity. Unlikable can still work if it's coming from a real place - I think of the brilliant, Diablo Cody-penned Young Adult as a prime example. But here, writer-director Maggie Carey makes it feel like she's working backwards from an admittedly hook-y premise. The premise doesn't necessarily feel like it comes organically from the characters. So Brandy feels less like a character and more like a walking vehicle for the movie's premise. Why was Brandy so puritanical in the first place? If her friends are out having sex and hooking up, why does she seem so ignorant to it all? Why exactly does lusting after one guy suddenly make her want to experiment with a whole menagerie of guys? There's a lot of stuff here that, honestly, feels a bit forced and contrived.

(Aside: the movie is set in 1993, but for no real reason other than as an excuse for lots of awkward references and "let's laugh at how things were back then" jokes. The 90's setting is almost less a plot-point than it is a running gag, but it's also played too straightforwardly to be all that funny.)

Here's the thing though: THE TO DO LIST could have avoided a lot of these sorts of issues by simply going big, broad, and absurdist. The movie's best moments come when it goes in that direction, and just chucks any pretense of sincerity or realism out the window. For example, when Andy Samberg shows up as an Eddie Vedder-wannabe grunge singer, who's hilariously dark and tormented howls while hooking up with Brandy had me loudly laughing. Another example is the hilariously over-the-top writing for Brandy's parents, which forces Clark Gregg and Connie Britton to give matter-of-fact sexual advice to their daughter in a way that might make even Eugene Levy blush. But the movie's more absurdist moments are outweighed by the movie's more dominant tone - which is much more straightforward and sitcom-y. The film attempts to mine a lot of laughs and extract a lot of shock value from how far it goes with some of its sex gags and gross-out humor. But despite the almost uncomfortably frank depictions of various sexual acts, things still seem oddly restrained. It's like the sex itself is supposed to be shocking/funny enough to power the movie's engine. In reality, the movie needed more jokes and gags that ratcheted things up a notch, and built some more real, comic momentum. Maybe the memory of the brilliantly-escalating jokes from this summer's THIS IS THE END is still too fresh - but in comparison, the comedy of The To Do List felt a bit weak and unimaginative. Yeah, it's different and semi-shocking to see a female protagonist get, um, intimate with herself onscreen in this level of detail. But the ensuing jokes to make the scene worth more than just shock value are sorely lacking.

Still, I mentioned the level of talent in the film, and it really is an impressive ensemble that helps to elevate things. I'm still a huge fan of Aubrey Plaza. She is eminently watchable in this, and she does innumerable little things to make certain scenes funny beyond what's in the script. She's getting really good at physical comedy as well, as evidenced in, among other scenes, her hilarious attempt to woo Rusty while wearing an ill-fitting bikini. Meanwhile, guys like Bill Hader bring improvisational talents so as to make little, off-the-cuff-scenes (like his impromptu Home Improvement parody) into memorable comedic moments.

THE TO DO LIST has its moments - it's helped immeasurably by a great and funny cast, and it's frequently fun to just watch these talented actors do their thing. But too many jokes and gags fall flat for me to recommend it as a must-see comedy. And for a comedy that has a number of incredibly broad, over-the-top gags, the movie still feels too serious-minded for its own good. To that end, it feels like a movie intent on saying *something* about femininity and sexuality, but that can't quite nail down what that something is.

My Grade: B-

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Pits Monster Geeks Vs. Greeks

MONSTERS UNIVERSITY Review:

- Is PIXAR slumping? I don't know. I hope not. Is this one of those late-period Simpsons things, where the argument is brought up that they're not as good as the glory days, but that a only-okay-for-Pixar movie is still better than most of the competition? Maybe. Pixar was so good for so long, churning out original hits like Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, and Wall-E, that everyone sort of wondered when the other shoe would drop. When Toy Story 3 came along and was (improbably) actually the best Toy Story yet (and one of Pixar's best), it was cemented: Pixar really could do no wrong. But lately, the momentum seems to have shifted a bit. Cars 2 was solid, but many were less than impressed. Brave didn't live up to its pre-release hype. And now, Monsters University is, of all things, a prequel. A prequel?! Aren't prequels where good franchises go to die? Isn't a prequel - that most hackneyed and cliched of Hollywood franchise-building tactics - a bit below the high standards of excellence that Pixar is known for? The very idea of it was off-putting.

On paper, Monsters University if not exactly a riveting concept. Was anyone really demanding the "secret origins" of Mike and Sulley from Monsters Inc., told as a send-up of 80's-style geeks vs. greeks college comedies? Not so much. But Pixar does tend to do these things well, and with Pixar you can expect a love and care put into the movie that other studios wouldn't bother with. You can also expect a level of thematic depth that most animated films don't possess. As familiar as the setting and conventions of Monsters U may be, the story undoubtedly takes some unexpected and thematically-complex turns. In short: I don't know that MU's jokey, cutesy, prequel premise was ever going to lend itself to cinematic greatness - but damned if Pixar doesn't aim high.

As mentioned, the movie's plot details the first meeting of Mike and Sulley, when both are just starting out as students at the prestigious MU. Mike is the classic monster underdog - not inherently good at being scary, but determined to succeed anyway thanks to a combination of perseverance, doggedness, hard work, and heart. He's convinced that if he studies hard enough and gives it his all, he'll overcome his deficiencies as a scarer, and become one of the greats. Meanwhile, Sulley arrives at MU with a rep as a gifted scarer, thanks to his family name, and the fact that his dad was a legend. Sulley is practically destined to be a great scarer - a second-generation blue-chipper who may not be much for studying and technique, but who makes up for it with good genetics and natural talent. Mike and Sully start out as rivals, but after getting into some trouble together and facing the wrath of MU's intimidating Dean Hardscrabble, both get kicked out of the scare program, and become desperate for a way back in. Enter the Scare Games - MU's annual inter-fraternity scaring competition. Mike and Sully make a deal with Hardscrabble to let them back into the scare program if they manage to win the games - though they'll face expulsion from MU if they lose. The Dean agrees, but that means that the unlikely pair has to join a fraternity. The only one that will have them is Oozma Kappa (OK!) - a motley crew of losers and rejects. Their chief competition is Roar Omega Roar - a bunch of big-shot frat-monsters with designs on winning the games.

What I quickly realized about Monsters U is that it's really a comedy, and maybe the most overtly comedic movie that Pixar has made. The movie has its roots in things like Animal House and Revenge of the Nerds. There's lots of homage to other college comedy classics, and there are a lot of winking references that movie fans will enjoy. What's more, the script from Dan Scanlon, Daniel Gerson, and Robert Baird is typical Pixar goodness. The dialogue is clever, the jokes (both verbal and visual) are snappy and at times hilarious, and the characters - even the side ones - are sharply defined and creatively conceived.

I'll focus in for a minute on those visuals. While MU doesn't have the scope or scale of Pixar classics like The Incredibles or Wall-E, its comedic elements allow Pixar's crack team of animators to really have some fun. There's all sorts of brilliant little Looney Tunes-esque visual gags (including a great one that pays off in a hilarious post-credits scene). And while there is an old-school, Saturday morning cartoon-style charm to some of the characters and jokes, there are also some undeniably cool action scenes (primarily the competitions from the Scare Games) that have a sleek, videogame-esque sense of dynamism. Finally, there are some moments of unexpected visual beauty in the movie that really wowed me. In particular, scenes in which the monsters travel into the "real" world - where us humans live - have a stunning look and feel to them, as the textures of the animation become grittier and darker, and the cartoonish monsters take on a legitmately-monstrous heft and weight. The character designs, overall, are are really cool. From the winged, demonic Dean Hardscrabble to the oddball members of Oozma Kappa, MU is overflowing with cool characters (loved the punk rock riot grrrls of the HSS sorority). So even if MU doesn't have the big, dazzling, jaw-dropping moments of a Wall-E, it's still got visual flair to spare.

Of course, the voice actors are another big reason as to why the movie succeeds. While it's a little hard to imagine the aging voices of Billy Crystal and John Goodman as belonging to fresh-faced college students, both (particularly the amazing Goodman) are so good in general that that initial weirdness factor soon dissipates. The movie overall though is loaded with smartly-cast voice actors. Helen Mirren shines as Dean Hardscrabble. Steve Buscemi is a lot of fun as Mike's geeky roommate Randy. And Aubrey Plaza has some of the movie's funniest moments as deadpan Scare Games ringleader Claire.

And what's interesting about the movie is that while much of its structure follows the usual college comedy template, it takes an interesting left turn towards the end. It doesn't get uber-dark or anything like that, but things also aren't *quite* as awesome-happy-everyone-is-amazing as you might expect. In the world of Disney, dreams always come true. But in the slightly-more-complex world of Pixar, sometimes it's less about dreams and more about making the best of what you have. It's a unique message - especially for a kids movie. A message that maybe not everyone is going to be a movie star, or a pro basketball player, or President. But maybe there are other things that are just as good, even if they're a little less reach-for-the-stars huge. In an age where kids and teens are constantly made to believe that they are one YouTube viral video away from being a TV star, it's a refreshing, if humbling, message from Pixar.

So what doesn't work? Well, for one thing, there's the line between paying homage and repeating what's come before. Sure, for kids the whole college setting and geeks/greeks rivalry may seem new, but there is something that's at times a little numbing about seeing a movie like this revisit so many tried-and-true genre conventions. Again, some of it may be the whole holding-Pixar-to-a-higher-standard thing. But it does feel a little disappointing to go from such a wholly original and imaginative idea in Monsters Inc. to a much less original and imaginative premise for its prequel. The comedy helps, and like I said, the movie is very sharp and funny. But it also feels relatively lightweight and fluffy as compared to the usual Pixar fare. I'd also chalk that up to the movie's rather mundane college campus setting. Pixar has fun with it, by subverting things to fit the whole monsters motif, but personally I don't think they go far enough. It seems like there is more opportunity for world-building, that isn't fully taken advantage of. And then there's just the usual case of prequelitis. You can't help but feel like it's sort of a stretch to shoehorn in this whole backstory to the world of Monsters Inc.

Overall though, I really enjoyed the film, and I think it will pleasantly surprise those who may have dismissed it offhand. It's funny, clever, a fun remix of college comedy films from back in the day, and has some really eye-popping character art and animation. Not a Pixar classic, but a positive sign that, hey, even when these guys don't hit a home run, they're still among the best in the biz.

My Grade: B+

SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED = A Hilarious Summer Surprise

SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED Review:

- Here in LA, there are so many indie movies playing in so many theaters, that it can be hard as a film fan to discern what's actually worth seeing. Sometimes, you've just got to take the plunge. And with Safety Not Guaranteed, the combination of good word of mouth, a premise that intrigued me (quirky time travel comedy) a cast that includes numerous actors I'm a fan of (Aubrey Plaza, Mark Duplass, Jake Johnson, Kristen Bell), and the fact that it was playing nearby my apartment ... all drove me to check it out. Well, I'm damn glad I did. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED is one of the best movies of the year so far - an absolutely hilarious, charming, and original comedy that is most definitely a must-see.

Much has been discussed about the origins of the movie's plot. Apparently, there was a real, minor news-of-the-weird story a few years back about a guy who placed an ad in the paper looking for a companion to go back in time with him. The movie takes that idea and runs with it - and in doing so, it tries to imagine just who this guy is that would place such an ad. Is he legit? Crazy? A little of both? Why does he want to go back in time so badly, anyways? In the film, we follow Darius (Aubrey Plaza), as she investigates these very questions. Darius is a twenty-something in quarter-life-crisis mode, stuck in an unpaid internship at a Seattle-based magazine, living at home with her dad (a briefly-seen but very funny Jeff Garlin), and trying to figure out what to do with herself - how to get out of her current funk. One day at the magazine, thirty-something reporter Jeff (Jake Johnson, best known as Nick on New Girl) pitches doing a story about a guy who's placed an ad in the paper about time-travel (very similar to the real-life ad described above). Jeff takes Darius and another intern - nerdy braniac Arnau (a hilarious Karan Soni) - to track down the guy who placed the ad and see if there's a story to be found. Jeff, however, has his own agenda. He sees the story as an opportunity for a paid vacation. Also, it so happens that his old flame from high school lives in the same town as the time-travel guy, and Jeff has hopes of a hook-up. He also decides to take Arnau under his wing and show him how to loosen up and party. Meanwhile, it's Darius who ultimately meets and gains the trust of the would-be time-traveller, Kenneth (Mark Duplass, in an amazing performance). And while everyone else views the story as a sort of weird joke, Darius begins to wonder if there's more to this Kenneth dude than meets the eye.

Mark Duplass as Kenneth is ridiculously funny in this. He's like some weird mashup of Kenny Powers, Napoleon Dynamite, and 80's-era Kurt Russell (he wears a denim vest with cutoff sleeves and upturned collar at all times, and sports an awesomely retro mullet to boot). Kenneth is just a great character - with a naive-but-steadfast belief in his mission and purpose that rarely wavers. He's also supremely paranoid, slow to trust Darius and convinced that people are out to get him. And he's also a geek - a guy who seems to be overcompensating for years of being a weirdo and outcast by haphazardly training himself in martial arts, firearms, etc. with a delusional belief that those skills will be crucial when he travels to the past. But ... there is also a sense that, for all his delusions, there just might be some weird sort of genius buried within Kenneth. And also, there's a real sadness that occasionally bubbles up. Kenneth is a great character because he's over-the-top and really, really funny - but also because there is genuine humanity at his center.

And honestly, that's what's great about this film - it isn't afraid to get serious and emotional - but it's never cheesy about it ... the emotion feels earned. And the seriousness also never comes at the expense of the comedy. I can only evoke such classics as The Simpsons, in terms of comparable comedy that still managed to gut you at times when the tone would become more sincere.

To that end, I did feel like there was something deeper going on with this movie, despite the comedic sensibility. It felt like a movie about being in your 20's, about figuring out where you're going, and about figuring it out in spite of what others think. In fact, the three main characters (other than Kenneth) each sort of represent a different stage of being a twenty-something. Arnau is the naive nerd who's still really sort of a kid (he's inexperienced with the ladies and has lightning bolt decals on his laptop). Darius is the girl who's ready to make her mark in the world and take that next step into adulthood. And Jeff is the guy who's older and jaded, and nostalgic for the days before the world had beaten him down. It's interesting to me that the movie spends as much time as it does with Jeff and his quest to rekindle his old romance with his girlfriend from high school. At first, when he sees she's put on a few pounds and aged a bit, he balks. But soon enough he realizes that he needs to get past the fact that nobody looks like they did when they were eighteen. At the same time, Darius has to get over her cynicism about Kenneth - slowly but surely, she realizes that he just may be one of the more genuine people she's met, even if everyone else thinks he's crazy. Arnau tries to overcome his annoyance with Jeff's fratboy ways, and realize that maybe he does need to man up and face the world a bit more than he has.

In some ways, this is also a great companion film to the recently-released MOONRISE KINGDOM - both are about outcasts finding each other, and both have an "us against the world" theme at their core.

Getting back to the cast for a second though ... while Duplass gets a lot of the best lines and moments, the ensemble here is really pretty remarkable. Aubrey Plaza obviously tends to play a certain type of character, but she does it so well, and can bring so much nuance to these types of roles, that you can't really complain. She's great here. Jake Johnson is really good too - he brings the same sort of barely-bottled-up rage and emotional instability to the film that he does to New Girl, and he's a guy who just has amazing comic timing. Same goes for Karan Soni - hilarious and spot-on. There are also some nice little appearances from fan-favorites like Mary-Lynn Rajskub, Jeff Garlin, and Kristen Bell.

Most of all, the movie just has a really funny, really well-done and multilayered script from Derek Connelly. These are just great characters, given hilarious dialogue - but there's also that underlying sincerity and heart that makes this a multidimensional and highly rewarding film. My one complaint is that a key plot-point about Kenneth's relationship with Kristen Bell's character felt a little too ambiguous for me. The truth about their relationship motivates a lot of the movie's plot - and provides the backstory for *why* Kenneth wants to go back in time in the first place, and I felt like the script left us hanging a little bit with the reveal there.

Overall though, SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED is one of the nicest film surprises of the year so far. Laugh-out-loud hilarious yet oddly poignant, this is a must-see for those looking for something a bit more substantial and unique this summer. Seek it out and see for yourself. And hey - it's also got time-travel!

My Grade: A-