Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: 'Admission' wastes the considerable charms of Tina Fey and Paul Rudd

The director of 'About A Boy' whiffs his latest adaptation of a novel

  • Critic's Rating C-
  • Readers' Rating n/a
<p>Tina Fey should take Paul Rudd and that suitcase and take off in search of a better script than 'Admission'</p>

Tina Fey should take Paul Rudd and that suitcase and take off in search of a better script than 'Admission'

Credit: Focus Features

Are you a fan of Motion Captured?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

I haven't read the novel by Jean Hanff Koreltiz that served as the source material for the new film "Admission," but Karen Croner's screenplay is one of those films where the lead characters are ostensibly smart people who do some oddly not-so-smart things for reasons that seem less than genuine. I wouldn't call "Admission" a bad film, but I think it's a muted pleasure at best, even with Tina Fey and Paul Rudd both doing their best to keep things light and charming.

Fey stars as Portia Nathan, who works at Princeton as one of the gatekeepers who help decide who gets into the school and who doesn't. Portia is portrayed as one of those people who has no real life outside of her job as the film begins, and she seems fine with that. Her devotion is one of the reasons she ends up as a candidate to replace her boss (Wallace Shawn), the department head who is about to retire. All she has to do is buckle down for one more admissions season, do her job as well as she always has, and then reap the rewards.

Portia spends part of the year touring schools and she's approached by John Pressman (Paul Rudd), who runs an alternative school called New Quest. He wants her to see his school, and in particular, he wants her to meet a student named Jeremiah (Nat Wolff), who he considers a prime candidate for Princeton. The film gets preposterously complicated very quickly once John reveals that Jeremiah is actually Portia's son who she gave up for adoption at birth, just as Portia's boyfriend (Michael Sheen) dumps her in favor of a girlfriend who he got pregnant.

My problem with the film is that I have a hard time believing that someone who is as bad at the basics of social behavior would have done as well in her job as she has. She's a klutz, but only when it's convenient, and nothing you see her do in the film would really convince you that she's a competent and even above-average professional. That always drives me crazy in a film, and especially in a film that deals with ostensibly smart people. I think Paul Weitz is capable of real subtlety, and I can even see some overlap between this and "About A Boy" in terms of thematic territory. As likable as Rudd and Fey are as performers, it feels like they're propping up a flimsy script, and by the time things reach their fairly predictable conclusion, I just didn't care. There's nice work by Lily Tomlin in a small role as Fey's mother, but it's so disconnected from any of the primary story of the film that it feels like an afterthought.

Here's the most damning thing I can say about the film. When I saw it in mid-February, I thought it was, at most, a mild pleasure. Less than a month later, I am having trouble remembering the whole film clearly. I typically have great recall for movies. Films I saw 20 years ago, I can discuss in detail if they work, but a film like this is cinematic Teflon. It just slides right off, and nothing about it sticks. If you feel compelled to see it because of the cast, you'll get that itch scratched, but if you want anything more, anything substantial, "Admission" simply doesn't make the grade.

"Admission" opens in theaters this Friday.

Drew-mcweeny-sm
Drew McWeeny
Film Editor
A respected critic and commentator for fifteen years, Drew McWeeny helped create the online film community as "Moriarty" at Ain't It Cool News, and now proudly leads two budding Film Nerds in their ongoing movie education.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Fountain-small_talkback_profile

    Fawst

    When a film has TV spots that use the actors as themselves promoting the film, it's usually a giant, rippling red flag warning you that the movie is far from good. It makes the film look silly, it's an embarrassment to the actors (especially if those actors are as high-profile as Fey and Rudd -- these are not unknowns) and it feels like the production company is trying to trick me. Now, I understand that advertisements are one giant ruse where the goal is to part me with my money, but it doesn't normally come across that way. I'm not the least bit surprised at this review.

    March 19, 2013 at 8:14AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      DefRef I noticed this as well. The ads don't tell you a single thing about the plot, but basically say, "You people like Tina and Paul and who doesn't love Lily Tomplin? $10, please." Um, no.

      March 19, 2013 at 9:38AM EST
  • Zoidberg_talkback_profile

    mrbilliam

    The ads for this are the worst thing on TV right now:

    "I'm an admissions officer and you run a high school!"

    Clearly that is the biggest obstacle that could ever happen to people since the whole Montague/Capulet thing.

    March 19, 2013 at 9:56AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ungruntled Funny. Along the same lines...

      Here is a compelling argument that social change has removed many, if not most, of the traditional obstacles that served as the conflict engines in classic romantic comedies, and that the elimination of those obstacles has cut out the heart of the form:

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/03/why-are-romantic-comedies-so-bad/309236/

      And here is an equally compelling rebuttal, which provides example after counterexample of (a) classic romcoms that don't have conventional conflict engines and (b) modern romcoms that *do* have conventional conflict engines and still work reasonably well:

      http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/social-change-didnt-kill-the-romantic-comedy/

      All very interesting to think about.

      Now, that being said, there's certainly a *perception* that the conventional plot devices are outdated and need to be refreshed or replaced. This may actually apply more for the people who make movies than the people who watch them, now that I think about it. Regardless, it's the same old quest for the new, or at least for a superficially new polish on the very old. Which is why we get bullshit conflicts like "The Wedding Planner" and its ilk, which are basically all redressed versions of "career woman is very busy and too focused on work instead of love."

      Anyway, it's an interesting lens through which to look at ourselves: why do we like romantic stories, which ones work and which ones don't, which classics survive ("Philadelphia Story") and which are abandoned as not being so classic after all ("Pretty Woman"), etc., etc.

      All fascinating stuff.

      March 19, 2013 at 12:54PM EST

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web