Year: 2010
Director: John Erick Dowdle
Screenplay: Brian Nelson
Starring: Chris Messina, Logan Marshall-Green, Jenny O'Hara, Bokeem Woodbine, Geoffrey Arend
Synopsis is here
To say that M Night Shyamalan's recent releases have not been critical darlings is a tiny bit of an understatement. Have a quick root around Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic or IMDB and you will see The Last Airbender obtaining some of the worst reviews of not only of the year, of the man's whole career. It's getting tough for the man who was in consideration to become the so-called "next Spielberg". Things have gotten so awkward that Universal removed the filmmakers name off his producer credited film; Devil. To make matter worse, Devil has not had advance screenings to critics. The interesting thing I find about this is, that while many yell that critics mean nothing to anyone, they obviously have enough of a voice to make it seem to a studio that it's squeaky bum time.
I don't see why the studio were so worried, as it seems that M Night has finally done what many have hoped for: Come up with the idea and let other people set about the writing and directing of it. Devil has Shyamalan well ingrained into it's DNA, however by placing someone in those seats that M Night loves keeping warm, what we get is a neat, nicely paced morality tale which while flawed, still manages to be an enjoyable waste of 80 minutes.
It's important to note the films running time as it is the trimming of the fat that has been sorely missing from M Night's films. Features like The Village and The Happening, spent too much time padding out their thin narrative with portentous posturing. Constantly pretending that they were better than their twilight zone plots. Devil wastes no time in trying to raise it's head above it's B movie trappings and is all the better for it. The film is well paced and feels more focused on it's characters and the situation at hand. It helps that the writer (Brian Nelson) and Director (John Erick Dowdle) are known more for their genre filmmaking more than anything. It helps here, with the two managing to create a sufficient amount of tension and unease throughout.
This is not to say that the film hasn't got it's flaws. There is no need for the films naive narration, which like The Last Airbender, points out the obvious to the audience despite the fact that the viewers can clearly see what's happening/about to happen. Also, one of the things that M Night can do well is make sure that the actors have a certain amount of restraint in their acting. I understand that what we have is B-movie, genre territory, but by not reigning in some of the performances, the acting suffers slightly.
However with this said it is in no way bad enough to make me dislike the film in it's entirety. Like Signs, the films main theme is faith and how we respond to it in the modern world. The film handles this well and like signs, it's executed in a way that helped me forgive some of the flaws I had with the film, although someone could have turned down the bombastic musical cues.
Devil ran at a tight pace, had enough mystery to have me doubt the outcome (although I did stick to my original guess and was correct.) and ending on a wonderfully satisfying and hopeful note that really threw me. There's some interesting visuals (for a film mostly set in a lift) and all in all I left the cinema relatively happy. Then I stuck my headphones in and forgot about it. That's the problem with junk food cinema, it never lasts.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Review: Dinner for Schmucks
Year: 2010
Director: Jay Roach
Screenplay: David Guion, Michael Handelman
Starring: Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell
Synopsis is here
We're a cruel race. Just purely awful at times. Far too often we are quick to revel in schadenfreude. I doubt anyone would I'm that wrong in saying this. I mean there isn't failblog for nothing is there? We particularity enjoy laughing at those who we feel are below us. How often do you hear people talk about how they can't wait for the next season of x-factor so they can watch and laugh at the guys at the start before it gets bogged down in the actual singers. We LOVE that stuff.
It comes to no surprise that our love for imbeciles rears it's head often on the big screen. From the man child comedies of Farrell and Sandler, the box office successes of such hits as Dumb and Dumber or Wayne's World. Mainstream audiences greatly enjoy the idea of laughing at simpletons. Dinner for Schmucks is no exception.
However, as I have mentioned before with the above mentioned examples, there is usually something within the film other than "stupidity" that gives the film a certain amount of enjoyment. I have not seen Le Dîner de Cons (the french original of this film) but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong social/moral element that you get very often with the french affair. I mean even their action films have to have a slight subtext it seems.
The point I'm making in the worst round about way is many of these films do their best to take away that schadenfreude element. Be it the likability of the characters, or a certain satirical, social or otherwise, there is something we can get behind to make sure it's not just a viral of a fat guy falling over. Dinner for Schmucks however, is an irritatingly tedious, board comedy with an uneven tone and grating characters. Paul Rudd and Steve Carell in a film and not doing enough to lift the material? Yep, for me, it was that bad.
It's not really the fault of the actors, for me it's a screenplay issue. This is a film that has difficulty with it's lovable loser character. It's obvious that the film wants a nice board everyone appeal. Unfortunately it's decided to tie this up with someone who seems to be having real, troubled mental issues. So bad does the film miss the mark with the character of Barry, that some of the later so called "punchlines" that the film tries land sound more likened to a Todd Solondz feature than anything else. Not that I dislike Solondz but he doesn't try and shoehorn unnecessary darkness in corners for a 12a film that clearly wants to be goofy. The character of Barry is so troubling because he is the person that the whole film is weighed upon. We're just been laughing AT him and his problems, then we need give a sentimental toss at a flick of a switch as if we weren't just giggling at this guy for all the wrong reason. This is one of the reasons I enjoyed Observe and Report so much more, it's tone is dark but it doesn't suddenly try and fool you that it's dark tone was a clever rouse to get you to learn that the world is a better place if we "all get along". If you want to make clearly emotionally unpleasant jokes about finding the clitoris it works better if the rest of the film follows suit.
Add to this the fact that the film feels uniformly lazy in it's approach, Roach does nothing with the material to make this feel like a comedy worth watching. It goes from A to B at a tiresome pace, throwing in "comedic" elements that we've seen in better movies and wasting a Paul Rudd whose character in Friends (or maybe Halloween 6) had more to do than here. Lets not talk about the other comics in smaller roles because once again, you've seen them do better is other movies.
It is movies with stapled ending, simplistic humor and oddly smug overtones is why many have issues when Hollywood takes source material from overseas. I'm sure many haven't seen the French original but the backslapping, arrogant "we've clearly done it better" stench that emits from this stinker seems to say them "add it to your lovefilm".
Director: Jay Roach
Screenplay: David Guion, Michael Handelman
Starring: Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell
Synopsis is here
We're a cruel race. Just purely awful at times. Far too often we are quick to revel in schadenfreude. I doubt anyone would I'm that wrong in saying this. I mean there isn't failblog for nothing is there? We particularity enjoy laughing at those who we feel are below us. How often do you hear people talk about how they can't wait for the next season of x-factor so they can watch and laugh at the guys at the start before it gets bogged down in the actual singers. We LOVE that stuff.
It comes to no surprise that our love for imbeciles rears it's head often on the big screen. From the man child comedies of Farrell and Sandler, the box office successes of such hits as Dumb and Dumber or Wayne's World. Mainstream audiences greatly enjoy the idea of laughing at simpletons. Dinner for Schmucks is no exception.
However, as I have mentioned before with the above mentioned examples, there is usually something within the film other than "stupidity" that gives the film a certain amount of enjoyment. I have not seen Le Dîner de Cons (the french original of this film) but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a strong social/moral element that you get very often with the french affair. I mean even their action films have to have a slight subtext it seems.
The point I'm making in the worst round about way is many of these films do their best to take away that schadenfreude element. Be it the likability of the characters, or a certain satirical, social or otherwise, there is something we can get behind to make sure it's not just a viral of a fat guy falling over. Dinner for Schmucks however, is an irritatingly tedious, board comedy with an uneven tone and grating characters. Paul Rudd and Steve Carell in a film and not doing enough to lift the material? Yep, for me, it was that bad.
It's not really the fault of the actors, for me it's a screenplay issue. This is a film that has difficulty with it's lovable loser character. It's obvious that the film wants a nice board everyone appeal. Unfortunately it's decided to tie this up with someone who seems to be having real, troubled mental issues. So bad does the film miss the mark with the character of Barry, that some of the later so called "punchlines" that the film tries land sound more likened to a Todd Solondz feature than anything else. Not that I dislike Solondz but he doesn't try and shoehorn unnecessary darkness in corners for a 12a film that clearly wants to be goofy. The character of Barry is so troubling because he is the person that the whole film is weighed upon. We're just been laughing AT him and his problems, then we need give a sentimental toss at a flick of a switch as if we weren't just giggling at this guy for all the wrong reason. This is one of the reasons I enjoyed Observe and Report so much more, it's tone is dark but it doesn't suddenly try and fool you that it's dark tone was a clever rouse to get you to learn that the world is a better place if we "all get along". If you want to make clearly emotionally unpleasant jokes about finding the clitoris it works better if the rest of the film follows suit.
Add to this the fact that the film feels uniformly lazy in it's approach, Roach does nothing with the material to make this feel like a comedy worth watching. It goes from A to B at a tiresome pace, throwing in "comedic" elements that we've seen in better movies and wasting a Paul Rudd whose character in Friends (or maybe Halloween 6) had more to do than here. Lets not talk about the other comics in smaller roles because once again, you've seen them do better is other movies.
It is movies with stapled ending, simplistic humor and oddly smug overtones is why many have issues when Hollywood takes source material from overseas. I'm sure many haven't seen the French original but the backslapping, arrogant "we've clearly done it better" stench that emits from this stinker seems to say them "add it to your lovefilm".
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Review: Survival of the Dead
Year: 2010
Director: George A Romero
Screenplay: George A Romero
Starring: Alan Van Sprang, Kenneth Welsh, Kathleen Munroe, Devon Bostick
Synopsis is here
His "modern" trio of movies are difficult to place not just in continuity (Land feels like a true continuation, Diary a modern day offshoot, Survival even more removed) but also in tone and feel. Romero seems like he still has an axe to grind socially, but the world has changed, and with the almost constant slew of zombie movies being churned out, many share similar or even more interesting commentary on the world since. Nowadays Romero can construct a dead head explosion (despite using more CGI) but when many entries like Pontypool*, 28 Days later*, Rec and others have entered the genre pool and played in the waters in recent time (with extremely interesting results, there's a feeling that the master of them all should hang up his boomsticks and look at pastures new.
It's hard for many to see their idols fall, which is why when I heard some of the terrible reviews placed on George A Romero and his latest feature, Survival of the Dead I feared the worst. Many hating it's amateur feel, lack of atmosphere and general not-being-as-good-as-his-first-three-ness. Unfortunately I too, feel the same about the film. It is nowhere close to replicating the same amount of tension and fear set the original trilogy. Most of this stems from the fact that Romero doesn't feel the need to give us interesting people to follow anymore. Many lamented the drab teens of Diary but compared to the bland army men and farm folk of this entry, it makes the Diary guys look more animated than Woody and Buzz. Romero's idea of characterization for a lesbian army soldier is merely to have a shot of her touching herself and pepper her dialogue with "tough-speak". This is the most effort placed on any of the characters, and if you found those traits a little tired, you may not stand for some of the other "personalities" on display.
What's more disturbing is the complete lack of a meaty social commentary to get to grips with. So while Rec blended faux-documentary (a very go to thing these days) with hints of religion and science, and Pontypool utilize the very use of language against us (with a nice amount of skill) Survival goes over the well trodden theme of zombies gaining memory back, and a poorly executed idea of two bickering families with differing zombie ideologies. In all honest it was done so much better in 78 when Romero hint at these aspects before in Dawn.
Instead of working on making these ideas appealing, we are given very board humor (with none of the satirical edge seen in past films, a distinct lack of conflict (these warring families spend much of the movie apart.) and oddball dialogue. All this with a nagging feeling throughout that Romero probably wants to do something else with his filmmaking.
Romero gets it's hard because of his standing in horror. he pretty much laid the grounding. so now with this his sixth dead it's frustrating to see a talent bring up something so plain. There's not much to say about this sixth offering, other than there's a lot of headshots and this is the weakest of the dead films. I remember listening to the creative screenwriting podcast and listening to Romero talk about an horror idea involving lucid dreaming. It featured no zombies and the idea sounded great. Let's hope it comes to fruition.
Director: George A Romero
Screenplay: George A Romero
Starring: Alan Van Sprang, Kenneth Welsh, Kathleen Munroe, Devon Bostick
Synopsis is here
His "modern" trio of movies are difficult to place not just in continuity (Land feels like a true continuation, Diary a modern day offshoot, Survival even more removed) but also in tone and feel. Romero seems like he still has an axe to grind socially, but the world has changed, and with the almost constant slew of zombie movies being churned out, many share similar or even more interesting commentary on the world since. Nowadays Romero can construct a dead head explosion (despite using more CGI) but when many entries like Pontypool*, 28 Days later*, Rec and others have entered the genre pool and played in the waters in recent time (with extremely interesting results, there's a feeling that the master of them all should hang up his boomsticks and look at pastures new.
It's hard for many to see their idols fall, which is why when I heard some of the terrible reviews placed on George A Romero and his latest feature, Survival of the Dead I feared the worst. Many hating it's amateur feel, lack of atmosphere and general not-being-as-good-as-his-first-three-ness. Unfortunately I too, feel the same about the film. It is nowhere close to replicating the same amount of tension and fear set the original trilogy. Most of this stems from the fact that Romero doesn't feel the need to give us interesting people to follow anymore. Many lamented the drab teens of Diary but compared to the bland army men and farm folk of this entry, it makes the Diary guys look more animated than Woody and Buzz. Romero's idea of characterization for a lesbian army soldier is merely to have a shot of her touching herself and pepper her dialogue with "tough-speak". This is the most effort placed on any of the characters, and if you found those traits a little tired, you may not stand for some of the other "personalities" on display.
What's more disturbing is the complete lack of a meaty social commentary to get to grips with. So while Rec blended faux-documentary (a very go to thing these days) with hints of religion and science, and Pontypool utilize the very use of language against us (with a nice amount of skill) Survival goes over the well trodden theme of zombies gaining memory back, and a poorly executed idea of two bickering families with differing zombie ideologies. In all honest it was done so much better in 78 when Romero hint at these aspects before in Dawn.
Instead of working on making these ideas appealing, we are given very board humor (with none of the satirical edge seen in past films, a distinct lack of conflict (these warring families spend much of the movie apart.) and oddball dialogue. All this with a nagging feeling throughout that Romero probably wants to do something else with his filmmaking.
Romero gets it's hard because of his standing in horror. he pretty much laid the grounding. so now with this his sixth dead it's frustrating to see a talent bring up something so plain. There's not much to say about this sixth offering, other than there's a lot of headshots and this is the weakest of the dead films. I remember listening to the creative screenwriting podcast and listening to Romero talk about an horror idea involving lucid dreaming. It featured no zombies and the idea sounded great. Let's hope it comes to fruition.
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
Review: Piranha 3-D
Year: 2010
Director: Alexandre Aja
Screenplay: Alexandre Aja, Pete Goldfinger, Josh Stolberg
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott, Jerry O'Connell, Ving Rhames, Dina Meyer, Jessica Szohr, Steven R. McQueen, Christopher Lloyd,
In a recent interview, James Cameron has taken Piranha 3D to task over it's use of well... the 3D. The comments may feel slight but not only did it hit some of the makers a bit hard but it also comes across as a little hard to swallow considering the 3-D medium is nearly almost being reserved for animated movies with celebrity voices. It is true that certain directors with more pedigree are looking utilizing the idea of 3-D, Cameron's views come out during a re-release (less than a year after) of Avatar. So despite being the biggest selling movie in the world (with inflation etc.) Cameron wants you back in the cinemas (in 3-D) once more, after you've already brought the DVD (not 3-D) of his epic.
Cameron's words feel sillier to me still because there's still a lot of people out there who couldn't care less about 3-D. Not critics or wanker bloggers like me, but those who go to the flicks once very so often just to watch a flick. The hiked prices, the fussy glasses and the fact that to some, the effect just dosen't do that much, puts them off. "The best films are being made in 3-D" says the director, however, I do feel that films like Toy Story 3 could have done alright without needing to be in 3-D.
This in a around about way brings me to Piranha 3-D a shlocky affair with it an eye on it's target audience and tongue so firmly in it's cheek you'd need some flares, a mobile and some gas to dislodge it. Director Alexander Aja utilities the effect like Pixar do with their short film before the aforementioned Toy Story 3, as an amusing distraction, more than anything else. That train of thought may hurt someone like Cameron, but for a movie like this with it's cheeky references to Jaws and Girls gone Wild alike, it appears to catch the post-modern wave quite well. Quite simply, much like 3-D, the film is a guilty pleasure.
Piranha 3-D starts off with more build up than I expect, and while the fishy foe do make the odd appearance, Aja still saves enough time to give me some thin but fun characters who tuck into the goofy material enough to keep me going. The Expendables clearly wanted to capture this silly little bubble, but for me Piranha is not only more coherent, but also less full of it's self for my liking. Yes, better known stars like Elizabeth Shue and Ving Rhames are in this. They are however taking bites out of the scenery, but it doesn't feel like a grasp at relevance, more like a chance to let their hair down a bit. To be honest, all of the cast are in on the joke so to speak with adequate displays throughout. Yes. even Kelly Brook who is clearly used more for her coke bottle figure over any thespian talents is watchable here.
Also letting it all hang out is the film's director. Aja's film is no-way as intense as his earlier features (Switchblade Romance, The Hills have eyes remake), but this in no way hampers his inventive execution of set pieces. Some feel well known (the two kids on an island waiting for help), while others feel very fresh. The films centerpiece (the destruction of the Lake Victoria beach) has some creative comic death moments, showing the filmmaker at their most playful. With this said Piranha still manages to give off a certain level of threat (although no real full on scares) with some of it's many underwater scenes giving off just enough tension to remain interesting.
Piranha 3-D is a loving hark back to an eighties vibe of horror film-making, mixing the gore drenched splatter features of that era with an extra added Porky's vibe to it. Interestingly with all the gratuitous female features on display, Aja's film still manages to make the characters we're meant to be watching likable enough to forget about the boobs (depending on who you are). A fun, disposable flick with enough gore and laughs for genre fans, Piranha isn't going to make massive waves in the great horror circle, but manages to be a nice nibble for it's 88 minutes.
Director: Alexandre Aja
Screenplay: Alexandre Aja, Pete Goldfinger, Josh Stolberg
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott, Jerry O'Connell, Ving Rhames, Dina Meyer, Jessica Szohr, Steven R. McQueen, Christopher Lloyd,
In a recent interview, James Cameron has taken Piranha 3D to task over it's use of well... the 3D. The comments may feel slight but not only did it hit some of the makers a bit hard but it also comes across as a little hard to swallow considering the 3-D medium is nearly almost being reserved for animated movies with celebrity voices. It is true that certain directors with more pedigree are looking utilizing the idea of 3-D, Cameron's views come out during a re-release (less than a year after) of Avatar. So despite being the biggest selling movie in the world (with inflation etc.) Cameron wants you back in the cinemas (in 3-D) once more, after you've already brought the DVD (not 3-D) of his epic.
Cameron's words feel sillier to me still because there's still a lot of people out there who couldn't care less about 3-D. Not critics or wanker bloggers like me, but those who go to the flicks once very so often just to watch a flick. The hiked prices, the fussy glasses and the fact that to some, the effect just dosen't do that much, puts them off. "The best films are being made in 3-D" says the director, however, I do feel that films like Toy Story 3 could have done alright without needing to be in 3-D.
This in a around about way brings me to Piranha 3-D a shlocky affair with it an eye on it's target audience and tongue so firmly in it's cheek you'd need some flares, a mobile and some gas to dislodge it. Director Alexander Aja utilities the effect like Pixar do with their short film before the aforementioned Toy Story 3, as an amusing distraction, more than anything else. That train of thought may hurt someone like Cameron, but for a movie like this with it's cheeky references to Jaws and Girls gone Wild alike, it appears to catch the post-modern wave quite well. Quite simply, much like 3-D, the film is a guilty pleasure.
Piranha 3-D starts off with more build up than I expect, and while the fishy foe do make the odd appearance, Aja still saves enough time to give me some thin but fun characters who tuck into the goofy material enough to keep me going. The Expendables clearly wanted to capture this silly little bubble, but for me Piranha is not only more coherent, but also less full of it's self for my liking. Yes, better known stars like Elizabeth Shue and Ving Rhames are in this. They are however taking bites out of the scenery, but it doesn't feel like a grasp at relevance, more like a chance to let their hair down a bit. To be honest, all of the cast are in on the joke so to speak with adequate displays throughout. Yes. even Kelly Brook who is clearly used more for her coke bottle figure over any thespian talents is watchable here.
Also letting it all hang out is the film's director. Aja's film is no-way as intense as his earlier features (Switchblade Romance, The Hills have eyes remake), but this in no way hampers his inventive execution of set pieces. Some feel well known (the two kids on an island waiting for help), while others feel very fresh. The films centerpiece (the destruction of the Lake Victoria beach) has some creative comic death moments, showing the filmmaker at their most playful. With this said Piranha still manages to give off a certain level of threat (although no real full on scares) with some of it's many underwater scenes giving off just enough tension to remain interesting.
Piranha 3-D is a loving hark back to an eighties vibe of horror film-making, mixing the gore drenched splatter features of that era with an extra added Porky's vibe to it. Interestingly with all the gratuitous female features on display, Aja's film still manages to make the characters we're meant to be watching likable enough to forget about the boobs (depending on who you are). A fun, disposable flick with enough gore and laughs for genre fans, Piranha isn't going to make massive waves in the great horror circle, but manages to be a nice nibble for it's 88 minutes.
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs The World
Year: 2010
Director: Edgar Wright
Screenplay: Michael Bacall, Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, Jason Schwartzman, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons, Aubrey Plaza, Satya Bhabha, Chris Evans, Brie Larson, Roxy Richter, Brandon Routh, Keita Saitou, Shota Saito
It is now almost cliche for a film critic to comment on a film as "like a video game". It's a usual complaint from a reviewer (who is usually a non-gamer) to downgrade a modern film, which is mostly fueled by it's overtly flashy visuals, hack-slash editing, paper-thin characters and a liner plot. As movies have become more aggressively aimed towards the teenage male market (and all that disposable income), they have slowly started to take the form of their computer counter-parts.
So while games have been doing their best to become more intricate in the telling of their stories and building as well as expanding their visual world. It seems to some that many mainstream films are becoming more and more like Daikatana, clumsy, awkward, ambling creatures which will only provide a quick fix than anything lasting.
However, it seems that there might be an generation of films that is doing it's best to try and combine film and game elements together. The over the shoulder visuals that were seen in such films as The Losers and Knight and Day (in between the extreme close ups) feel much like the third person shooters of Gears of war and Resident Evil 4/5, while I likened Paul Greengrass' Green Zone to Modern Warfare 2 earlier this year. There was also the case of Inception in which Patrick Goldstein's article in the Los Angles Times felt that Nolan's multi-leveled narrative feels much more at home with the younger audiences with their x-boxes and playstations than the older crowd.
And so, with Roger Ebert yelling that video games can never be art and reviewers such as the classy guys at filmspotting despising (or growing out of) gaming (with their balanced but dismissive review of this film) it's seems that Edgar Wright has took it on himself to make his "difficult third album" a crowning achievement of video game as part of the cinematic aesthetic.
I can say very easily this...I can see why it didn't blow the box office apart. Most films can usually be separated from their source material. Not here. This is a film which is so entrenched in it's sources, that it's almost impossible to split them. You might not have read the graphic novel the film is based on. But the Manga, the video games, the leisurely references to Canada? It's sown into the very fabric of the film, making sure Scott Pilgrim fits neatly into the pocket of niche.
Despite being the box office's bitch, Scott Pilgrim won me over in spades. Not only was I in love with it's ambition, but totally bowled over by it's execution. At every turn I was dazzled by it's visual style, offbeat rhythm and quick witted dialogue. This is Spaced goes Canadian, not only utilizing the same transitions that made Edgar Wrights sitcom so eye catching, but nabbing a whole range of ideas from other areas and films to make an astonishing slacker comedy pastiche. It's narrative is structured like a video game, it's fight sequences build and are almost executed like an musical while many of the transitions owe a debt to The Wachowskis' Speed Racer. This mixture shouldn't work and to some it really won't, but for me I found myself constantly grinning to myself.
It wasn't just because I got the references or found myself amusing by the 60's batman like words springing up like pop-art. But it was because how Wright manages to make sure that the film's humor and characters feel so unique to me. Not following the regular beats of a usual feature, Scott Pilgrim remixes the feel of the ordinary with the hyper-abstract, nabbing from a huge pop culture sandbox and rolling at a furious pace but still maintaining a wonderful coherence despite it's ridiculous (but playful) asides. Instead of talking down to you it merely asks you to keep up with it. Some have found some of this hipster pandering, only speaking to an ADD crowd. However, to me Wright's film is more layered than that, using this bold visual style and wry screenplay to ask us to suspend our belief for a selfish young man (difficult to do in film at the best of times) who must not take the easy way out in order achieve the ultimate goal.
Moments of the film do have a feeling of self-indulgence but this feels more because the film is set all in the main characters head most of the time rather than pompous posturing. What we get is a teen eye view of inner baggage and infatuation, and while it may feel alien to some, there is an endearment to be found within these characters. Ramona (A very sexy Mary Elizabeth Winstead) may seems aloof and bitchy, but the reasons why are very plausible. The same goes for the odd looking Micheal Cera whose pitch perfect comic timing once again becomes key into unlocking a girls heart and getting us on his side to root for him.
Even the secondary characters are great to watch even if a little one note at times. But then again, the supporting cast is a Daria-esque Alison Pill, a very game Chris Evans, an equally game Brandon Routh and yet another great performance from Kieran Culkin (See Igby goes down) whose gay roommate got a fair share of laughs from myself.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World has not set the world alight money wise, but then again, how can you market something that is so destined for cult? We should be too quick to judge comic-con reaction as real-life everyone reaction. However I must say (despite not really explaining in my review) I loved this movie. Not only I admired the ambition, as a teen comedy...there isn't anything like it, but because of it's audacity. Scott Pilgrim wears it's bizarre feel on it's shoulders and not giving a damn like it's love interest. The references? they are there and they're quite light. As I'm not a Manga fan I can't say I got them all (expect Routh's 3rd Ex going super sayian) and as a gamer(of sorts) I didn't feel they overloaded the movie. Dynamic visuals, fun characters, a great fantasy world with an interesting structure and characters I dug hanging out with. For or against? I'm Camp Pilgrim
Director: Edgar Wright
Screenplay: Michael Bacall, Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Anna Kendrick, Jason Schwartzman, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons, Aubrey Plaza, Satya Bhabha, Chris Evans, Brie Larson, Roxy Richter, Brandon Routh, Keita Saitou, Shota Saito
It is now almost cliche for a film critic to comment on a film as "like a video game". It's a usual complaint from a reviewer (who is usually a non-gamer) to downgrade a modern film, which is mostly fueled by it's overtly flashy visuals, hack-slash editing, paper-thin characters and a liner plot. As movies have become more aggressively aimed towards the teenage male market (and all that disposable income), they have slowly started to take the form of their computer counter-parts.
So while games have been doing their best to become more intricate in the telling of their stories and building as well as expanding their visual world. It seems to some that many mainstream films are becoming more and more like Daikatana, clumsy, awkward, ambling creatures which will only provide a quick fix than anything lasting.
However, it seems that there might be an generation of films that is doing it's best to try and combine film and game elements together. The over the shoulder visuals that were seen in such films as The Losers and Knight and Day (in between the extreme close ups) feel much like the third person shooters of Gears of war and Resident Evil 4/5, while I likened Paul Greengrass' Green Zone to Modern Warfare 2 earlier this year. There was also the case of Inception in which Patrick Goldstein's article in the Los Angles Times felt that Nolan's multi-leveled narrative feels much more at home with the younger audiences with their x-boxes and playstations than the older crowd.
And so, with Roger Ebert yelling that video games can never be art and reviewers such as the classy guys at filmspotting despising (or growing out of) gaming (with their balanced but dismissive review of this film) it's seems that Edgar Wright has took it on himself to make his "difficult third album" a crowning achievement of video game as part of the cinematic aesthetic.
I can say very easily this...I can see why it didn't blow the box office apart. Most films can usually be separated from their source material. Not here. This is a film which is so entrenched in it's sources, that it's almost impossible to split them. You might not have read the graphic novel the film is based on. But the Manga, the video games, the leisurely references to Canada? It's sown into the very fabric of the film, making sure Scott Pilgrim fits neatly into the pocket of niche.
Despite being the box office's bitch, Scott Pilgrim won me over in spades. Not only was I in love with it's ambition, but totally bowled over by it's execution. At every turn I was dazzled by it's visual style, offbeat rhythm and quick witted dialogue. This is Spaced goes Canadian, not only utilizing the same transitions that made Edgar Wrights sitcom so eye catching, but nabbing a whole range of ideas from other areas and films to make an astonishing slacker comedy pastiche. It's narrative is structured like a video game, it's fight sequences build and are almost executed like an musical while many of the transitions owe a debt to The Wachowskis' Speed Racer. This mixture shouldn't work and to some it really won't, but for me I found myself constantly grinning to myself.
It wasn't just because I got the references or found myself amusing by the 60's batman like words springing up like pop-art. But it was because how Wright manages to make sure that the film's humor and characters feel so unique to me. Not following the regular beats of a usual feature, Scott Pilgrim remixes the feel of the ordinary with the hyper-abstract, nabbing from a huge pop culture sandbox and rolling at a furious pace but still maintaining a wonderful coherence despite it's ridiculous (but playful) asides. Instead of talking down to you it merely asks you to keep up with it. Some have found some of this hipster pandering, only speaking to an ADD crowd. However, to me Wright's film is more layered than that, using this bold visual style and wry screenplay to ask us to suspend our belief for a selfish young man (difficult to do in film at the best of times) who must not take the easy way out in order achieve the ultimate goal.
Moments of the film do have a feeling of self-indulgence but this feels more because the film is set all in the main characters head most of the time rather than pompous posturing. What we get is a teen eye view of inner baggage and infatuation, and while it may feel alien to some, there is an endearment to be found within these characters. Ramona (A very sexy Mary Elizabeth Winstead) may seems aloof and bitchy, but the reasons why are very plausible. The same goes for the odd looking Micheal Cera whose pitch perfect comic timing once again becomes key into unlocking a girls heart and getting us on his side to root for him.
Even the secondary characters are great to watch even if a little one note at times. But then again, the supporting cast is a Daria-esque Alison Pill, a very game Chris Evans, an equally game Brandon Routh and yet another great performance from Kieran Culkin (See Igby goes down) whose gay roommate got a fair share of laughs from myself.
Scott Pilgrim vs The World has not set the world alight money wise, but then again, how can you market something that is so destined for cult? We should be too quick to judge comic-con reaction as real-life everyone reaction. However I must say (despite not really explaining in my review) I loved this movie. Not only I admired the ambition, as a teen comedy...there isn't anything like it, but because of it's audacity. Scott Pilgrim wears it's bizarre feel on it's shoulders and not giving a damn like it's love interest. The references? they are there and they're quite light. As I'm not a Manga fan I can't say I got them all (expect Routh's 3rd Ex going super sayian) and as a gamer(of sorts) I didn't feel they overloaded the movie. Dynamic visuals, fun characters, a great fantasy world with an interesting structure and characters I dug hanging out with. For or against? I'm Camp Pilgrim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)