The Official Review Thread of 2010

[Sabin]

(Sonic Youth @ Sep. 30 2010,4:20)

See, Sabin? This is how you get people to see the movie. Use reverse psychology!

Dully noted. To badger is to fail. I should just start telling my roommates that rent is never due again and see if that invokes a sense of fear.

I'd like to take a step back and discuss Scott Pilgrim, Inception, what I perceive to be the immediate future of cinema, and how it relates to you. This will be a series of general ruminations for all, but most specifically geared towards anyone who missed Scott Pilgrim.

I should start by saying that it's not like I expected Damien, Mister Tee, or Magilla to have gone out clamoring for Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, a film jam-packed with various ingredients that I would make an educated guess you all would find aversive. I'm just astonished this film generated no discussion whatsoever on this message board. To put it mildly, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is one of the watershed films this year for both what makes it a success and what makes it a failure. This film came and went in a manner that I find most distressing for reasons I will get into in a moment.

One of my biggest regrets wrt film school was my decision not to focus on the technical aspects of filmmaking: cinematography or visual effects. I focused on other areas that in today's economic climate do not a good life in Los Angeles make. But I'm increasingly paying attention to what I perceive to be the immediate future of cinema. The future that George Lucas talked about in making a studio film in your bedroom is nigh. Finer details such as acting and screenwriting are being somewhat lost, but the raw scope of production that can be created in microbudget is expanding exponentially and we are currently stuck between the old guard of 1990's blockbusters directed by genre/generic pros like John McTiernan, Renny Harlin, et al is over, and the coming age of your Matt Reeves, your Neil Blomkamp, and your Zach Snyders is underway. The Aughties failed to produce a crop of immediately identifiable auteurs like the 90's, and you could make the argument that the most immediately identifiable filmmakers to emerge all technically began in the previous decade. What we are about to experience is a boom of movies spread throughout the year produced on modest budgets with the scope and sensibilities of major Hollywood productions. They will all be Calling Card Films...

...and Calling Card Films carry a whiff of ego to them. The reason I bring this up is that right now we have establishment filmmakers bridging the gap between Where We Were and Where We Are Going. James Cameron for Avatar? Sure. But I'm more interested in the case of Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright. I'll talk about the former for a moment because I think there's a chance that Christopher Nolan is going to be one of the last of the 90's Old Guard Summer Directors. He's a populist masquerading as an intellectual, which is to say quite often he makes blockbusters that approximate intelligence. Which I'm down with. I'm a fan of his. I listened to an interesting interview with a remarkably lucid Armond White where he panned Inception for not holding water when held against films prior that concern themselves with dream logic. I completely agree, and yet I would never tell anyone to not see Inception. While Nolan has increasingly developed a unique style that classifies him as an auteur, I would not call him a figure who is moving the medium forward. He's not giving us anything we haven't seen, but rather he has cultivated something rather classical within an egghead aura of nerd-cool.

And America ate Inception up. It must break down to (Dark Knight + Leo)/Cool Trailer = Hit. Inception has a lot more in common with Avatar than one would like to admit. Just as Avatar was dumbed down for international consumption, Inception is a film that brandishes itself as cerebral but is imminently consumable for the common man with very little that can be called indigestible. Just as Memento was a film that made the audience feel smarter for staying on board, The Prestige flattered the audience by revealing its hand just enough for one to pick up on it and feel smart, whereas Inception doesn't really have cards to begin with of any real importance.

Nolan is what we all thought Shyamalan would be. He's a good square filmmaker with a blank check. Edgar Wright may not get a budget like this for some time, and that's a shame because Scott Pilgrim is one of those movies that is moving the medium forward in our time of gulf. You have never seen a movie as cinematically liberated in such a way. It's interesting to read Tee's disdain for video games, which I do not play nor have I in almost a decade, but Inception is structured as a video game with levels. What Scott Pilgrim does is truly a feat of dream-logic, which is to say it approximates the grand euphoria one gets from being swept away by a girl, by a game, by a movie. It's a love letter to ADD youth, a movie of sensory overload in a way that compensates for niggling red flags. But it is a movie that pulls us forward in ways that we have not seen before. I would argue that its technological advancements of which there are several are only enhanced by the freewheeling abandon with which Edgar Wright condenses time and space in his subjective world. My favorite moment in the film involves pre-lapping dialogue that calls to Scott, dragging him from one moment in time to another. The film film approximates this, like a fantastical Goodfellas in basically being an ebullient bag of tricks brought to glorious life.

It has problems. It has a limited appeal to people on this message board, and far more so off this message board than I had thought. But it is a movie unlike anything you've ever seen. Whereas Inception (and its coming ilk; just wait) has the stench of Calling Card Filmmaking, Scott Pilgrim is proactive while also joyously retro. And when a movie like Scott Pilgrim fails like it did, it's just sad. It's worse than sad. It's depressing. Because it validates financial conservation limited to the imminently disposable, or the establishment already turning their wheels. Film is a Two-Head Beast looking backwards and forward at the same time. Right now, Scott Pilgrim is the only studio film I've seen this year that is looking forward, and it does so with exhilaration.

[Mister Tee]

I've heard it said that the world gets faster and noisier and flashier as one gets older, and there's eventually the point where we can't keep up anymore. I suppose I don't have much to go on, except I don't think you're one who enjoys today's pop and rock music, if I recall correctly.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I'm not remotely a "Would you kids turn that noise down?" type. But when you use the phrase "can't keep up"... it is true that, about 25 years ago, I suddenly found I had trouble maintaining the intense following of contemporary music I'd had for the preceding quarter century or so (basically all songs from 1955 through '85 I can identify in a couple of notes). I always thought this had more to do with the fact that I'd just met my wife and thus had less alone time filled with the radio. (An old roommate of mine, who'd married right out of college, got divorced around then, and he noted that we'd totally switched roles, as he suddenly knew everything about the current pop favorites) We also never had children, and it's my observation that alot of "grownups" get a second shot at life listening to the radio through their kids.

So, anyway, I don't reject contemporary pop, and even I've not been so obtuse as to miss, say, REM, Eminem, Outkast, Coldplay, etc., and I'm fine with most of them. I'm just not immersed in a culture where the whole of the FM dial is general knowledge. What that says about how I'd like this movie we'l find out later.

Now, video games, that always struck me as a waste of time. But I'm not averse to a brainless cool-looking movie.

[Sonic Youth]

Sonic, am I really one of those most resistant to the newfangled?

Yeah, but this is REALLY newfangled.

I've heard it said that the world gets faster and noisier and flashier as one gets older, and there's eventually the point where we can't keep up anymore. I suppose I don't have much to go on, except I don't think you're one who enjoys today's pop and rock music, if I recall correctly. And this movie taps into today's pop culture mindset. If it's something you don't embrace, you may be left behind. And I don't remember a movie with this much energy. Ever. Think "Run Lola Run"... times ten. I found it exhilarating. Others will find it punishing. But it's worth a try.

Also, as I said, the movie is nonsense. And I mean literally. The story really makes no sense. I'm not sure what the point of it was, except to produce sheer mindless fun. And for mindless fun, this was very savvy. But you should switch off a part of your critical faculties. Pronouncing "The story doesn't make any sense!" (as, admittedly, I just did) isn't approaching the film in the right spirit.

See, Sabin? This is how you get people to see the movie. Use reverse psychology!

[Mister Tee]

Yeah, given the recommendations, I'll look at it when it hits DVD. As for why I didn't previously...my entertainment dollar doesn' go as far as it used to, and I'm fairly selective these days. The subject matter didn't seem immediately appealing, the reviews weren't overwhelmingly good, and the director wasn't such a draw, as I found Hot Fuzz considerably less clever than it was supposed to be.

Sonic, am I really one of those most resistant to the newfangled?

[Damien]

I had never heard of "Scott Pilgrim" til the movie was released. And then the movie looked like it was just another loud, juvenile summer movie to which I didn't give a second thought. It never crossed my mind to actually see it. But now I will check it out when it's released on DVD.

[Sabin]

There are a ton of different sounds being mixed in Scott Pilgrim and they all register. They had to mix sound effects with dialogue and at times different themes overlapping. Scott Pilgrim is a movie to be played triumphantly loud and that's the mixing. There's an amazing sense of aural atmosphere in the film.

[OscarGuy]

I don't know about the Sound Mixing, but I would also go for Sound Effects. If you know the Zelda themes, you get a little tingle every time you hear something from that...and it's not like they randomly throw this stuff in, they choose the right sound effect of emotion from a specific game for the corresponding emotional moment. I do love it.



Edited By OscarGuy on 1285869817

[Sabin]

Split-screen involved editing and cinematography. I don't think you can separate the two because precise framing is involved, but the act of splitting the screen like Scott Pilgrim did with myriad edits within is absolutely film editing.

I think this is Bill Pope's best shot film since The Matrix. In a way, I think it's even better. Along with Pawel Edelman's work on The Ghost Writer, Kyung-Pyo Hong's work on Mother, Robert Richardson's work on Shutter Island, and Eric Gautier's work on Wild Grass, I think it's one of the best shot film of the year.

In addition, Scott Pilgrim deserves nominations for Costume Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Effects, and Visual Effects. Which it won't get. This film is going to across the board goose-egg come Oscar time. I would love to see Edgar Wright nominated for Best Director.

[OscarGuy]

I would love to see Scott Pilgrim nominated for Best Visual Effects, but I don't know if it would qualify as a VFX piece or one of editing. How do split screens and the like count for such consideration?

It also has some excellent costume design. Each piece tailored to the character and modified as appropriate for the various stages of the film. Each villain has a motif and it's one of the more impressive aspects of the film, IMO.

[Sabin]

(Sonic Youth @ Sep. 30 2010,12:36)

Me, I have no Facebook or Twitter account, I don't text, and my cellphone is a very basic Samsung with a cracked screen. I've never Myspaced, Friendstered or Livejournalled. I've Craiglisted once, but never eBayed. I haven't played a video game since my parents threw the Atari 2600 away. And, as any stand-up comedian in the Catskills will tell you, the next time I see my 20s it'll have a '1' in front of it.

But you are on a message board. You state later that this is clearly not a movie for many people on this board, and you're probably correct. I'm just amazed that a month and a half has gone by and it seems to have gathered zero attention here. And in so, I'm astonished at how much of a failure Scott Pilgrim really is. It doesn't deserve to be. I would have thought that this film would have at least tricked one of our elders into the theater, but this film couldn't trick anyone with its marketing campaign and the powerful aversion many have to its lead.

(Sonic Youth @ Sep. 30 2010,12:36)

And yet... so long as I'm able to accept the film as nonsense, much like the 60s psychedelic-lite films such as "Help!" and "Head" and the like; and so long as I'm able to ignore the huge gap in the film left by the utterly uncharasmatic leading couple (by no means a minor issue)... I thought it was a rush.

I'd place most of the blame on Cera. I will happily admit to considering him once one of the great child actors on television on Arrested Development, and in Superbad he was quite good as well. He's miscast in Juno and seemingly everything else these days. He looks good on paper for this role but he lacks the spark that this character needs. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty engaging but Michael Cera just looks weird kissing her. Their one date together set to the Beachwood Sparks' "By Your Side" evokes a surface cuteness but does not go deep enough. We don't see for a moment what draws them to each other, but what Scott Pilgrim gets very right is the feeling of a total inability to be alone together in a relationship. The comic Scott Pilgrim is a more sprawling beast and their relationship lasted almost a year, but it also is devoted to a total inability to simple be in an uncomplicated relationship with someone without being hindered by the past. This film gets that part of the equation very right.



Edited By Sabin on 1285864627

[Sonic Youth]

Damien's right. It is a movie for the kids, specifically the teenage to mid 20s white, suburban, middle-to-upper class niche. I don't think one necessarily has to be a video gamer to respond to the movie. You just need Facebook, Twitter, an iPhone, a callused texting finger and the like to dictate your perspective of the world you live in. But even that shouldn't be a hindrance to those who don't see the world as merely virtual. The dealbreaker is the filmmaking itself. The noise, the lights, the flickering pace, the micromanaging of every shot and cut is what's going to widen the generation gap. Stylistically, it's a "Natural Born Killers" for the kids. I don't think I've ever experienced such relentless sensory stimulation in a movie before. I won't call it overload, but others will, and I would be very interested to hear what Magilla, Mister Tee and Damien think of "Scott Pilgrim". I'd expect them to hate it, or find it exhausting and give up before it's through, or at the very least resort to "I admire what it's trying to do. It's simply not for me" (a very diplomatic way of saying "I give up.") Plus, I doubt they'd want to sit in a theater among a bunch of 14 year olds making out.

Me, I have no Facebook or Twitter account, I don't text, and my cellphone is a very basic Samsung with a cracked screen. I've never Myspaced, Friendstered or Livejournalled. I've Craiglisted once, but never eBayed. I haven't played a video game since my parents threw the Atari 2600 away. And, as any stand-up comedian in the Catskills will tell you, the next time I see my 20s it'll have a '1' in front of it. And yet... so long as I'm able to accept the film as nonsense, much like the 60s psychedelic-lite films such as "Help!" and "Head" and the like; and so long as I'm able to ignore the huge gap in the film left by the utterly uncharasmatic leading couple (by no means a minor issue)... I thought it was a rush. Sabin, you're right. It's an exhilarating film and a major technical accomplishment. But sorry, I don't think too many people here are going to like it.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1285850653

[OscarGuy]

I very much loved Scott Pilgrim, but I'm part of the video game generation. I just think that it wasn't marketed well enough. Normally I don't agree with my friends on much, but we all came out really liking the movie. Had they advertised on all the major geek websites and done more cross-promotional advertising with video game manufacturers (especially Nintendo which seemed to have the bulk of the material lovingly spoofed in the film), perhaps it would have done better with the demographic who adored 300.

[Sabin]

Check that: I understand why some of the elders on this board haven't seen this film, but I would hope that the directorship of Edgar Wright would prove slightly enticing.

Everyone I know who has seen Scott Pilgrim is broke, busy, and has seen it twice. And everyone else is broke, busy, and the trailer didn't look good to them. I think Scott Pilgrim is a casualty, pure and simple, one of the rare instances of a studio film doing something truly ambitious, succeeding wildly, and then bombing. The degree of Inception's success is a little surprising to me. I didn't brandish the toxic word of mouth I had thought. Leo, Nolan, an upside-down fight sequence, and a billion dollars later Inception is the champ. That Scott Pilgrim couldn't muster a fraction of that goodwill is depressing to me.

[OscarGuy]

Rushmore and Election are films that older audiences can understand. Scott Pilgrim is very much a movie that appeals to a very specific demographic, mostly auds that grew up on video games. So, basically my generation and younger. Some older folk might get it, but I would be surprised if a lot of older audiences even recognize what Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy and Mortal Kombat are.

[Sabin]

(Damien @ Sep. 29 2010,12:17)

(Sabin @ Sep. 27 2010,10:13)
/Scott Pilgrim vs. The World/ (Edgar Wright)

Why have none of you seen this film?

Because it's a movie for the kids.

Yeah. So's Rushmore. So's Election.
Although certain narrative subtleties are lost on him, Edgar Wright is a modern pioneer of The Visual Comedy. The Visual Comedy has always been in a perennial state of decline. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz only hint at the subjective reality of Scott Pilgrim, the most mis-marketed film of the year. There is an astonishing precision to his coverage and his conveyance of performance within these micro-moments. Edgar Wright is a major filmmaker. And yet the film carries baggage with it, which I have already covered. I hadn't assumed it would serve as magnet for the Board's elders, but I had hoped that Wright's track record would serve as slightly more of a draw.