Share This Page

REVIEW: 'Admission' passable, but not worth top marks

| Thursday, March 21, 2013, 7:24 p.m.

Tina Fey makes funny TV shows, funny movies and funny books.

Director Paul Weitz often goes for something beyond funny — emotional stories of parents and children trying to puzzle out something beyond the flesh and blood that bonds them.

She did “30 Rock” and “Date Night.” He did “About a Boy” and “Being Flynn.”

And somewhere on the uncertain ground between the two is “Admission.” It's a romantic comedy — of sorts — about a lovelorn Princeton admissions officer forced to reconcile her judgmental job with the news that the baby she gave up for adoption 17 years ago might be applying to ... Princeton.

It's not a particularly satisfying comedy, but thanks to the cast and some of the odd directions it takes, “Admission” is an intensely likable one.

Portia (Fey) spends her days competing with Corinne (Gloria Reuben) to see who can be the snobbiest in front of the head of admissions (Wallace Shawn), hoping against hope to get the top job when he retires.

She comes home to her English lit professor live-in beau (Michael Sheen), who reads Chaucer aloud and declares “I like this life. I do, I do!” No children, an academic setting, a life of letters and purpose — what's not to like about it?

But calls are coming in. Quest, this new alternative school where kids learn to split wood, milk cows, build robots and think for themselves, has a star student. And his teacher, John (Paul Rudd), is determined to get Portia's attention. The student, Jeremiah (Nat Wolff), could be “Princeton material.”

There's something else John wants to get across, in between awkward moments of violating Princeton policy and instances where Portia is sure he's making a pass.

“Jeremiah — I think he's your son.”

Much of the film is about miscommunication, things that stop just short of being said — Portia accepting this shocking news, or denying it; John and Portia trying to not tell the kid. She keeps seeing little things the teen does that are like her and starts looking for shortcuts so that he can get into college.

Fey has made romantically put-upon her stock in trade, and as Portia's life unravels, there are plenty of moments that remind us of Fey's lonely “30 Rock” loser, Liz Lemon. Portia is set up to be in open revolt against a “hippie” school like Quest, thanks to her brittle, feminist lioness of a mother, Susannah, (Lily Tomlin). But she's an egalitarian acting as guardian of the gates of American exclusivity — a college where fewer than one in 26 candidates is “Princeton material.”

Fey plays this inner-outer conflict well. But at her most wide-eyed and vulnerable, she still has trouble making a romance credible, even with Rudd, edgy comedy's puppy dog of a leading man.

And Weitz can't winnow the story down to a simple personal journey with romantic overtones. “Admission” breaks down the college-admissions process, making blunt statements about the upper class “legacy” and the cards students and their hovering parents will play to score Ivy League acceptance.

It's too scattered and too ambitious for a movie that often slips into feminist, academic, postponed-motherhood and “alternative”-education cliches.

Roger Moore is a movie critic for McClatchy-Tribune News Service.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.