Poll: Screen One: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

[jackanderson]

Pre-Note: The poll isn't working. Again. So just leave your scores out of 5 and your impressions underneath. Thanks for bearing with it.

Film: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Director: Edgar Wright
Written By: Edgar Wright, Michael Bacall (Screenplay); Bryan Lee O'Malley (Source Material)
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Run Time: 1 hour 52 minutes
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ellen Wong, Kieran Culkin, Allison Pill, Jason Schwartzmann

To put it simply, Scott Pilgrim is THE film that I've been most looking forward to all year with the possible exception of Toy Story 3. I've followed this since the start of the year and ingested every single little bit of detail that has dripped from its orifices as soon as it was released. The point that I'm laboriously trying to get to, is that I have been desperately wanting to see Scott Pilgrim since I first heard about it back in January.

The absolutely great news is that Scott Pilgrim really does deliver on almost all levels. It's a two hour love letter to everything nerd and geek; that also doubles as a brilliant love story with brilliant action scenes and great performances from everybody. Even Kieran Culkin!

The story follows the titular Scott Pilgrim (Cera). A 23 year old slacker who shares a flat with his gay roommate Wallace Wells (Culkin), plays bass in a band called Sex Bob-Omb (yes, that Bob-Omb), is "between jobs" and is dating a 17 year old schoolgirl called Knives Chao (Wong). But then he literally meets the girl of his dreams in the shape of Ramona Flowers (Winstead) and they start to completely fall for each other. But there is a catch: In order to date her, Scott must defeat Ramona's seven evil exes, who are all coming to kill him.

From there, the film devolves into a breathless series of boss battles between each of the exes with very little breathing room in between. So those fights had better stack up. So it's a very good thing they do. Every single fight is not only a great spectacle: with split screens, jump cuts, CGI waves of energy and words appearing whenever somebody is hit; but also very innovative and entertaining. Specific moments that should be highlighted are the Bass Battle with Todd Ingram (Brandon Routh being, well, Brandon Routh), the Amp vs. Amp showdown with the Katayanagi brothers and Scott's body being used like a puppet during the fight with Roxy Richter.

During the moments where the film does slow down, we have a collection of fantastic performances to admire. Michael Cera still plays Michael Cera, but he's never played Michael Cera better. And his Michael Cera-ness is thankfully cut back on so that it never becomes overwhelming or turns into "Michael Cera as Michael Cera in Michael Cera: The Revenge Of Michael Cera". Elsewhere; Mary Elizabeth Winstead makes a great Ramona, Kieran Culkin is frequently hilarious as Scott's gay roommate and Jason Schwartzmann is suitably douchebaggy and funny as Gideon Graves, the leader of the evil exes.

Of course; this could be any film by anybody, if only it wasn't in the hands of the genius that is Edgar Wright. His direction here is impeccable and handled with real deft and precision. Quite often, it really does feel as if the film is just a videogame in film form. Nice touches like points, extra lives, combo counters, versus screens, the iconic K.O. from Street Fighter Alpha 3 and one extra little touch that I'd rather not spoil, but it'll have you River City Ransom fans giving a little squirt of fandom joy. Edgar Wright has always sneaked tonnes of references into his previous films but here they are front and centre for everyone to see.

But the best thing about Scott Pilgrim is that if you strip away all of the bells and whistles, the references and the flashy lights you will still have left a deep and very well told love story about fighting for the one you love. The fact that, unlike most action rom-coms, it can still tell a good, often great, love story when you strip away all of the action is a testament to the exceptional work put in by everybody involved and elevates Scott Pilgrim to classic status instantly.

And yet... I just cannot give this the 5 stars that it so richly deserves. There is one very good reason for that: not everybody is going to "get" Scott Pilgrim. It is a niche film, made for a niche audience. And whilst it is great fun and exceptionally well-made, most people are going to find Scott Pilgrim to be too nerdy or too "out-there" for their tastes. Since I don?t get paid for doing this jo? hobby and can't sell my soul to a corporation, I like to think that I review for everyone and that my opinion can be taken by anybody as the "average movie-goer's" view. As most people are not going to like Scott Pilgrim, which I'm completely ok with (unlike some people), I cannot give this a 5. And, whilst I'm nitpicking, some of the characters do not get enough screen time. Specifically, Evil Exes 5 and 6.

But this does not mean that you should re-prioritise what you are going to be seeing this weekend. To put it in the simplest and bluntest possible terms: YOU MUST SEE SCOTT PILGRIM! Usually I preface that with "if it is playing near you" but this time I'm not. Scott Pilgrim must be seen by everybody, even if you don't like it. It is an expertly made, expertly written, expertly acted piece of cinema made by the nerd?s nerd for nerds and a guaranteed cult classic which will be any serious movie geek's required viewing in a few years. Go and see it now, so that in later years you can say that you saw it first so that makes you cooler than all of those posers.

Oh, and whilst you're watching, keep an eye out for the best cameo(s) of the whole year. Seriously, it's 2010's Zombieland moment.

4 out of 5.

 

[jackanderson]

snip!

OK then. Let's break this down into stages.

While this is a well-written review...

Why thank you good sir!

...I cannot agree at all with your assessment of it.

Fair enough. Pray tell.

The problem exists mainly in the genre it sits in. It's a romantic comedy. That's a genre I dislike and disdain at the best of times, but when you're shoehorning a computer game element into it, it just seems pretentious. If I wanted to be reminded of retro computer games from the 1980s and 1990s, I'd just play the games.

Fair enough. I do happen to know people who can't abide most romantic comedies. But as for the film being pretentious, I personally don't see it. Edgar Wright has actually snuck in tonnes of references (specifically to other films) in his past movies. Here, they are front and centre, but I personally don't see it being pretentious. I just see it as a nerd's labour of love.

As for the romantic elements, it really doesn't seem to do anything new, exciting or even interesting. I don't watch films for the romance anyway, but if I did, I'd want a proper romantic subplot. This doesn't seem to fit the bill, and therefore, it fails on that element as well.

Having gotten half way through the books at time of replying, I will admit that the film doesn't really give too much time to the romance. However, they have tried to cut an entire six book series down into one two hour film. There is still a great degree of romance in there, it's just kept in the background.

I honestly don't think, based on the commercial failure of this film at the box-office, that this film will really make any impact on the film industry as a whole, but if it did, I'd hope that the message that it sent out was "stop making movies based on or referencing computer games." I think The Independent said this better than I have managed:

But if romantic comedies ? to which genre Scott Pilgrim notionally belongs ? start to ape video games too then we're really in trouble.

I don't believe that, even if it was a massive success, Scott Pilgrim would make any impact on the film industry in any way shape of form (unlike some people would have you believe). It is still, as I have said time and time again, a niche film made for niche audiences that I, personally, would love to see do well at the box office. That being said, it is a really really really well made niche film that is a thoroughly enjoyable time at the cinema and my current favourite film of the year.

As for The Independent quote: They shouldn't have anything to worry about. That; and I wasn't aware videogames were a bad thing.

This response was not snarky or sarcastic and if it appears that way, I do apologise.

Right then! Fellow Escapees! What did you all think of Scott Pilgrim?

 

[BlueInkAlchemist]

I posted my own review of the film, and it seems to be mostly in line with your thoughts. Completely agreed on the surprise cameos, and I do think RAK is being a little harsh for the sake of being harsh against a Michael Cera "romantic comedy."

Why, I have to ask, is Scott Pilgrim being pigeonholed as a romantic comedy? I agree, the central story is, at first glance, a romance. A great deal of the dialog is comedic. But how many romantic comedies do you know where the conflicts are resolved through kung-fu matches? And how many kung-fu battles have you seen in a movie that include running scores, power-ups and visible sound effects? I happen to think you can't put this movie comfortably into any one genre. But that's my opinion.

 

[Maet]

Why, I have to ask, is Scott Pilgrim being pigeonholed as a romantic comedy?

Because that's exactly what Scott Pilgrim is. Frankly, it almost feels as if the liberal helpings of comic book and video game flashes were included to make the bitter pill of lessons in life and love easier to swallow, especially when the target audience is notorious for under developed social skills and perpetual states of arrested development. My counter-question would be why we're allowing superficial stylings to avert our eyes from what Scott Pilgrim really is: a romantic comedy for those who, in real life, aren't particularly proficient at either.

Unlike RAK, I wouldn't call the nerdy elements "pretentious." I myself found them to be rather vulgar and occasionally cynical. The filmmakers play the novelty so aggressively that, for me, it wore thin halfway through the opening credits when god awful indie-punk and seizure inducing flashes assaulted my delicate eyes and ears. It speaks of catering to the small audience who is already captivated as opposed to the large audience (ranging from curious to incompetent with the material) who would like to give the film a chance but is being assaulted instead of informed by the subject. Scott Pilgrim isn't a genre film so much as it's a genre weapon.

And while most romantic comedies don't have blistering kung-fu battles, many of them do feature aspects of physical confrontation prominently as a way for the audience to empathize further with the lead. For most audiences, the only thing more endearing than Hugh Grant is Hugh Grant with a black eye and a broken arm. Whether or not that conflict is accentuated with power ups and flaming katanas doesn't really matter since all it really does, and is meant to do, is amplify. Provided the action is consistent with the film's context, of course.

I wrote about Scott Pilgrim too [http://www.confederatewing.com/2010/08/21/a-few-words-on-scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world/], and my general conclusion was that it was alright; somewhere between a B- and a 3/5 stars. It would've been a lot better if they toned down and controlled the energy, and refined the drama in the script. I will concede that a tamer presentation and more focused moral may destroy what works about the comic, but it would surely increase what works about the film. This was always the problem for me: Scott Pilgrim is translated from page to screen carrying over absolutely everything, good or bad. What works as a comic isn't guaranteed to work as a film, and that's the main point, if anything, Scott Pilgrim will end up proving to Hollywood. Had the material been adapted, where the filmmakers recognize what will work and what won't (and as far as I'm concerned, a considerable amount of it just didn't work), Scott Pilgrim would've surely become, if not something more influential, than something worth being proud of.

Edit: I'll give your review a 3.5 to 4 stars. Including a picture is always a good idea to make the prospect of reading a screen full of text more agreeable, and I do like the way you give basic information about the film (actors, director, run length, studio, etc.) at the start of it. The tone is alright, but at times you seem to sacrifice information for conversation (such as towards the end when you explain your reasoning for not being able to award the film 5/5) when both can be achieved with a little more effort. The audience understands that it's your review and your opinion without having to be reminded that the comments featured are your own. Bring yourself out of the review while being just as informative, and the end product becomes stronger.

 

[Danzaivar]

...I'd hope that the message that it sent out was "stop making movies based on or referencing computer games."...

If they took out the gaming references and zany combat, then it wouldn't be Scott Pilgrim. I totally agree that needlessly tacking gaming references into films is annoying as hell, but it's kinda at the heart of the Scott Pilgrim universe.

--

My beef with the film was that towards the end it felt rushed. Basically everything past the fight with the evil ex girlfriend seemed to be squeezed in. My friend who hadn't read the comics didn't seem to notice this, so I may just be biased there, but it definitely felt like they had a lot of stuff that was barely covered.

Subspace was barely mentioned to the point where it just seemed completely out of place at the start. Ramona's stuff was squeezed so bad you only got to see her 'impulsive *****' side, rather than the decent side which makes her worth fighting for.

Knives was better tho. Wallaces rampant homosexuality was also hilarious, tho they made him more of a dick at the same time (but it worked!).

Basically I just wish this film was about 3 hours long instead, or split in to two parts (Actually scratch that, cos the way it bombed would have meant to sequel/resolution). Heh.

 

[Gindil]

...I'd hope that the message that it sent out was "stop making movies based on or referencing computer games."...

If they took out the gaming references and zany combat, then it wouldn't be Scott Pilgrim. I totally agree that needlessly tacking gaming references into films is annoying as hell, but it's kinda at the heart of the Scott Pilgrim universe.

--

My beef with the film was that towards the end it felt rushed. Basically everything past the fight with the evil ex girlfriend seemed to be squeezed in. My friend who hadn't read the comics didn't seem to notice this, so I may just be biased there, but it definitely felt like they had a lot of stuff that was barely covered.

Subspace was barely mentioned to the point where it just seemed completely out of place at the start. Ramona's stuff was squeezed so bad you only got to see her 'impulsive *****' side, rather than the decent side which makes her worth fighting for.

Knives was better tho. Wallaces rampant homosexuality was also hilarious, tho they made him more of a dick at the same time (but it worked!).

Basically I just wish this film was about 3 hours long instead, or split in to two parts (Actually scratch that, cos the way it bombed would have meant to sequel/resolution). Heh.

Actually, that would have been better if it were given a Kill Bill-esque 2 part movie. I read the series after watching the movies. The 7 were coming up and being given the smack down pretty damn fast compared to the comic. Then again, the comic did take place over a year.

Some parts translated well such as Scott's need for growth from the horrible slacker that he was in the beginning.

Some parts came out pretty bad. I never got a sense that I knew Ramona. We knew about her, but she was always more of a background character even though Scott's fighting for her. Note to everyone, O'Malley was writing the last book as they were filming so of course, the end was going to be different.

Regardless, the Negascott thing did come off as funny. And Wallace. Wow... That's all I'm gonna say.

Given that, while I want to say it's the greatest romantic comedy out there, I'm going to say that the adaptation could have done a little better in working a little more on Winstead (Ramona), adding an hour, and splitting it up. Seriously, the twins don't even talk! I would have loved to see a few more plot elements come up and get laid out in the movie but that's another story for another time.

4.5/5 (Bias adds .5 to score)

 

[jackanderson]

Right, let's respond!

I posted my own review of the film, and it seems to be mostly in line with your thoughts. Completely agreed on the surprise cameos, and I do think RAK is being a little harsh for the sake of being harsh against a Michael Cera "romantic comedy."

Why, I have to ask, is Scott Pilgrim being pigeonholed as a romantic comedy? I agree, the central story is, at first glance, a romance. A great deal of the dialog is comedic. But how many romantic comedies do you know where the conflicts are resolved through kung-fu matches? And how many kung-fu battles have you seen in a movie that include running scores, power-ups and visible sound effects? I happen to think you can't put this movie comfortably into any one genre. But that's my opinion.

Glad that I'm not the only one who thought that those cameos were hilarious. [Name censored to keep them a surprise] needs to play more tough roles again. Also agree on your note that Scott Pilgrim not being a "rom-com". Like a lot of Edgar Wright's work, I think that Scott Pilgrim is actually very unclassifiable or genreless. But, look! Michael Cera is in it! That automatically makes it a rom-com which automatically makes it shite(!)

Edit: I'll give your review a 3.5 to 4 stars. Including a picture is always a good idea to make the prospect of reading a screen full of text more agreeable, and I do like the way you give basic information about the film (actors, director, run length, studio, etc.) at the start of it. The tone is alright, but at times you seem to sacrifice information for conversation (such as towards the end when you explain your reasoning for not being able to award the film 5/5) when both can be achieved with a little more effort. The audience understands that it's your review and your opinion without having to be reminded that the comments featured are your own. Bring yourself out of the review while being just as informative, and the end product becomes stronger.

Cutting out your very well done essay (no, seriously, it is great. People, go read it!), I'd like to thank you for your constructive criticism. As for the images; every single damn time I try to make them work, they don't. So I'll try next time for the last time and if it doesn't work I'll say "fuck it" and give up. Cos that's the kind of guy I am.

My beef with the film was that towards the end it felt rushed. Basically everything past the fight with the evil ex girlfriend seemed to be squeezed in. My friend who hadn't read the comics didn't seem to notice this, so I may just be biased there, but it definitely felt like they had a lot of stuff that was barely covered.

Subspace was barely mentioned to the point where it just seemed completely out of place at the start. Ramona's stuff was squeezed so bad you only got to see her 'impulsive *****' side, rather than the decent side which makes her worth fighting for.

Knives was better tho. Wallaces rampant homosexuality was also hilarious, tho they made him more of a dick at the same time (but it worked!).

Basically I just wish this film was about 3 hours long instead, or split in to two parts (Actually scratch that, cos the way it bombed would have meant to sequel/resolution). Heh.

I actually believe that, having held off reading the books before watching the film, that the film makes the books better. There are points, however, where the film is better (the fights with Roxy and The Katanayagi Twins as they are much better done). But the books do give us much more fleshed out characters.

To be fair, it's a great film and you have to give them credit for squeezing in six books in just under one two-hour film so well. Though I do feel a sequel would have benefited immensely, the current box office bomb that the film is turning out to be would've easily put pay to those dreams.

Actually, that would have been better if it were given a Kill Bill-esque 2 part movie. I read the series after watching the movies. The 7 were coming up and being given the smack down pretty damn fast compared to the comic. Then again, the comic did take place over a year.

Some parts translated well such as Scott's need for growth from the horrible slacker that he was in the beginning.

Some parts came out pretty bad. I never got a sense that I knew Ramona. We knew about her, but she was always more of a background character even though Scott's fighting for her. Note to everyone, O'Malley was writing the last book as they were filming so of course, the end was going to be different.

Regardless, the Negascott thing did come off as funny. And Wallace. Wow... That's all I'm gonna say.

Given that, while I want to say it's the greatest romantic comedy out there, I'm going to say that the adaptation could have done a little better in working a little more on Winstead (Ramona), adding an hour, and splitting it up. Seriously, the twins don't even talk! I would have loved to see a few more plot elements come up and get laid out in the movie but that's another story for another time.

4.5/5 (Bias adds .5 to score)

I haven't got anything to add here.

So, that was Scott Pilgrim. Though it's bombing (although it is currently the UK no. 2 movie1), this paves the way for the finale of the Simon Pegg/Edgar Wright Cornetto Trilogy! Anyone else excited? Cos I know I am!

 

[FactualSquirrel]

Well, I was already planning to see this this afternoon, but you've sort of firmed my decision.

So yeah, good review, very informative, and most of all, very readable.

 

[jackanderson]

I've decided to post my accompanying Bonus Picture column (that I use for my blog) here on the review, seeing as it clears up some misconceptions and should finally lay all of this moaning about Scott Pilgrim bombing to rest. As a warning, this may be a wall of text.

Fact: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a great movie. It is my "best movie of the year so far" by far. A nice simple statement there.

Another fact: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World has bombed. Horrifically. At the time of writing, it has made back $33 and a half million of its budget, which ranges anywhere between 60 and 90 million dollars. If this seems like a good thing, it's been out in America for 3 weeks now. So, to reiterate, Scott Pilgrim has bombed.

Some sectors of the internet took offence to this. The Escapist in particular being one such battle ground due to the views of their resident film critic. I can't claim the moral high ground, seeing as I got a bit pissed off too when those figures came in. But I'm a reasonable and respectable wannabe movie journalist (SHUT UP I AM!) and I happen to know exactly why Scott Pilgrim has failed. So I'm going to list them for you right now. After all, that's the point of the article.

1] Michael Cera is in the lead role.

Newsflash people: Michael Cera is not a popular guy. In fact, most of the internet generally regards him as a bit of an insufferable prick. There are two reasons for this and they both stem from the same cause. The less main reason is that Michael Cera plays the quiet unassuming type who is perfect in every way but just needs to get girls to understand him. He does by the end of the movie, obviously, but the fact that he is perfect in every way and always gets the girl infuriates most normal human beings. Why can't they be the lucky bastard who gets the girl all of the time?

This wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't for the main main reason: Michael Cera always plays the exact same role. He always plays Michael Cera. He always plays the quiet unassuming type who is perfect in every way but just needs to get girls to understand him. He always gets the girl at the end. He never plays anything else. So all of the goodwill he gained from Arrested Development, Superbad and Juno has been obliterated by his obstinate refusal to step outside his comfort zone.

But in Scott Pilgrim, Cera does play someone different. He plays a whiney, self absorbed, selfish dick. He is likeable, but he has more flaws besides "Girls just don't understand him". And it is those flaws, and Cera's ability to step outside of his comfort zone so willingly, which make Cera more likeable than he's been in years.

Unfortunately, neither the trailers nor the promotional material have done anything to change this perception of Cera. And since it looks like yet another film in which Michael Cera chases after a good looking girl for 90 minutes, most people are going to skip it on principle. Which is a shame, seeing as the time he's stepped out of his comfort zone is the time that it's failed miserably.

2] The release date was wrong.

Just allow me to set the scene for you here. The week before Scott Pilgrim's American release we saw The Other Guys and Step Up 3D make their way to screens. The same week in America that Scott Pilgrim was released; Eat Pray Love and The Expendables were also released. Finally; the week after Scott Pilgrim was released in America, there was the triple whammy of Vampires Suck, The Switch and Piranha 3D to contend with. Do you see what I?m getting at here?

In the UK, it was perfectly timed. The only films coming out the same week as Scott Pilgrim were Grown Ups, Diary Of A Wimpy Kid and Piranha 3D. Very little competition for the film to find an audience and it showed, reaching no. 2 in the UK box office (only beaten by Grown Ups. Ugh.). But in America, there were too many films coming out at the same time for a niche film like this to find a mass market. If it had come out during a week when there was nothing interesting out and people really wanted to go to the cinema, a niche film like this could?ve done well. Actually, that brings us very nicely to the final point.

3] Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a niche film.

This appears to be the one thing that The Escapist's MovieBob forgot about when moaning that The Expendables beat it open weekend, so much as to declare everybody who saw The Expendables retarded sheep. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a niche film. It is not for everyone. It does not feature many big name cast members (save for Michael Cera, but we've already talked about him). The Expendables, meanwhile, is a mainstream movie. It is for just about everyone. And its cast list is filled with big stars and big names. So that is why The Expendables won and Scott Pilgrim lost.

It's not just The Expendables you need to compare it to either. You need to compare the contents of the movie to everything else on the market. The film is basically genreless. It's not a romantic comedy in the traditional sense. It's not an action movie in the traditional sense. The cast is comprised of mostly unknowns, except to some nerds. The film contains tonnes of videogame references. Mostly references that occurred around about 20 years ago that only nerds are going to get. And it's also a love letter to every bit of geek culture of the last 20 odd years.

Now, you try telling me that a niche film like that is going to find a mass market audience. You can't, can you?

4] Conclusion.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World bombed for those three main reasons. Michael Cera being in the lead role, the poorly timed release date and, the big major reason, the fact that it is a niche film. In mainstream cinemas, Scott Pilgrim is not going to find an audience. But the good news is that it will most certainly make all of its money back with DVD sales and become a cult classic which will be every serious movie geek's required viewing within a few years in the process.

So to all of you people getting your knickers in a twist that Scott Pilgrim is being obliterated by something like Eat Pray Love, just ask yourself this one question. Which movie do you think people will still be watching and still talking about in, say, another five years? Then sit back and feel smug that you saw it first before all of those posers did.