Everyone has their summer movie, at least it seems that way amongst my friends and peers. There's always the one movie, usually a big one, that comes out during the summer that someone gets really excited about. While there were lots of candidates out there this summer (perhaps, most prominently, Inception), I knew which film was going to be "my movie" for the summer, and it was the one I was certainly the most excited about. That movie was Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, directed by Edgar Wright (who previously directed Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead) and based on the graphic novel series by Brian Lee O'Malley. The film tells the story of Scott Pilgrim (played by Arrested Development's own Michael Cera) who lives in Toronto and plays bass in a band called Sex Bob-Omb and dates high schooler Knives Chau (played by Ellen Wong) until he sees Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who moved here from New York City and falls in love with her. However, there is one condition if Scott wants to be together with Ramona-- Scott must defeat Ramona's 7 evil exes in video game-styled fights.
After hearing that they were making this movie, and then reading the graphic novels and seeing the trailers, I knew from the beginning this was going to be a movie that appealed to certain people (of the geeky persuasion, like myself, and people around the same age as me) and those people would like it, and it would not register at all with people on the other end of the spectrum.
Discerning the "stakes" or the goals for a film like Scott Pilgrim is important to evaluating and reviewing it. Wright had a difficult task ahead of him, because he was tackling an adaptation of a series of graphic novels with a solid following and that presented him with a lot of material. Six books, seven evil exes... there's a lot of ground to cover in the span of a 2 hour film, but I think Wright did a good job of synthesizing the material in order to make the film work. Wright incorporated all the main and important plot points, as well as the more important or central... flourishes (?) that one sees in the graphic novels. Of course, having read all of O'Malley's graphic novels, I knew there were things that were either left out or ideas that were incorporated into the film in other ways. Wright's adaptation proved to be faithful for the most part to the overall narrative of the source text, and thus avoided the potential pratfalls of adapting a book into a film. Like I said, Wright was jumping into the deep end by taking on a story that provided so much backstory and potential, but I think he by and large did a good job incorporating and synthesizing and deserves a great deal of praise for that given the high degree of difficulty with this task.
Michael Cera did a solid job as the titular title character Scott Pilgrim, hitting the right notes and following through on the model presented in the graphic novels. My one problem with Cera is that he's too nice/cute/innocent and sometimes Scott Pilgrim needs a little bit of an edge and a kind of... jerkiness that Cera doesn't really have (at least in my estimation). That's what makes the Scott Pilgrim character interesting and real-- he's not a perfect guy all the time. I mean, he's not "bad" and he's an easy character to like, but he's human and young and thus he sometimes doesn't do the best things and makes mistakes, especially in regard to relationships and the opposite sex. I think casting Cera prevented Wright from really developing that aspect of the character, though Cera does bring out the earnest and sweet side of the character. Again, this might be a choice made by Wright, to de-emphasize that "side" of the character, to keep the film under control. I don't think this took away from the film at all, and now I have a hard time thinking of anyone else who could play Scott Pilgrim, but I do think that the "other side" of the Scott Pilgrim character had to be underplayed a little bit because of that choice. However, that has nothing to do with Cera and his performance, and I think he did a great job and made the character we saw on the page translate onto the screen. Winstead, playing Scott's beloved Ramona, was outstanding and did a great job with the character and keeping it pretty close to the Ramona we see in the graphic novels. I've heard some criticisms that we don't get enough in the way of backstory and so the characters occasionally come off as flat, and sometimes I think Winstead falls victim to that, but I also think that attitude is part of the character. Winstead does a great job of getting the complete Ramona, as someone who is trying to escape something and protecting herself, which necessitates a kind of distance and coolness. Also, there is a certain erratic-ness and eccentricity to Ramona we see in the graphic novels, and I don't think the people who levied those criticisms understood that.
Beyond the two leads, Ellen Wong was very funny as Knives Chau, the high schooler Scott dates before he meets Ramona. In addition to that, there were also standout supporting performances by Anna Kendrick as Scott's sister Stacey, Allison Pill as Kim Pine, Sex Bob-Omb drummer and ex-girlfriend of Scott and Kieran Culkin in a scene-stealing performance as Scott's gay roommate Wallace Wells. I won't go through and talk about all of the evil exes because there are, you know, 7 of them, but I thought two really stood out-- Brandon Routh as one of Ramona's exes who is a vegan and plays bass in a band with Envy Adams, Scott's ex-girlfriend who broke his heart, and Jason Schwartzman in a hilarious turn as Gideon Graves, the ultimate and final ex that Scott must fight. Schwartzman does a great job as the slimy and (for lack of a better term) douchey ex-boyfriend, the "boss" ex-boyfriend to use a video game term, and does a great job of bringing the Gideon we see in the graphic novel to life.
Now, that kind of video game jargon is very appropriate, as the film is shaped according to video game aesthetics and those sensibilities dominate the film. This is another thing I've heard the film criticized for; those critics have felt that the whole "video game" aspect of this film, particularly as seen in the fight scenes, wears thin after a while. But Wright stays true to the source material as the graphic novel is totally infused with this kind of video game knowledge and sensibility, and consistently uses it throughout the film. Perhaps it is because I am of a certain generation and I've responded to this film, but I didn't find it particularly distracting or redundant. I mean, complaining about the video game motif in Scott Pilgrim is like complaining that Lord of the Rings is too fantastical or there's too much stuff about space in Star Wars. The movie, like the graphic novel, is very much participating and existing in a world of video games that is inhabited by people who are aware of those things, and thus it has to be a central part of any adaptation of the story.
The film itself is beautiful from a visual perspective, at times frenetic (especially during those fight scenes) with a certain futuristic beauty. It's beautifully rendered and that makes it fun to watch, not just because of what is happening but also because of how the action occurring on screen looks. My biggest criticism of the film, something that I think hurts the film a little bit, is the ending. I don't want to get into it too much so that I won't spoil it for anyone, but I will say that the ending feels extremely tacked on and a little bit forced. It felt as though Wright had an ending he needed to reach, but they didn't leave enough time in the film to reach it naturally.
After seeing the film for the first time, I've read statements by Wright about the ending and how it was affected by the publication of the final volume of the graphic novel series, things that perhaps explain why I feel the way I do but it doesn't make those feelings about the ending any less real. I'm happy with the ending they chose, but I just think the way they got to it was lacking and felt extremely rushed and thus took away from its power and immediacy. Also, I didn't like the way Wright deviated from the source material in the final fight with Gideon with how he used Ramona and Knives, particularly how he used them interchangeably., though I won't say anymore about that here. Though I think it yielded an interesting conclusion and emphasized the theme and notion that we can't run from our past but we have to live with it, it ultimately felt a little strange and like too great of a divergence from the source material. Wright did such a great job leading up to the ending, but I feel like he lost a little bit of control at the end and it fell a little bit flat and didn't live up to the promise set up by the action that preceded it. I also have some interesting thoughts and criticisms in regard to the ending, but I don't want to get into those thoughts here, as I don't want to spoil anything. But if you have seen the movie and want to hear, just let me know in a comment and I'll e-mail you my thoughts.
Even though the ending of the film feels a little rushed and tacked on, I don't think it takes away from what this film is-- an entertaining, fun, exciting and sweet film. There is an earnestness and sweetness to the romance between Scott and Ramona, and that love between the two characters really permeates throughout the entire film and makes it more than just a highly stylized video game-esque movie. There's heart there and you want to see Scott earn the hand of his beloved Ramona because you see how he is willing to fight on behalf of her. The heart and the sweetness is what makes this film a cut above, and that's definitely a result of Cera and Winstead as well as Wright's direction.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is (in my estimation at least) a perfect summer movie that strikes a balance between the showy visuals and action of most blockbusters while also infusing those aesthetic achievements with a heart and romance that stands up on its own. The actors are great and do a good job with their respective parts, with Michael Cera and Mary Elizabeth Winstead in the lead roles while there are also scene-stealing supporting characters throughout the film. Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the ending, or perhaps I should say the pacing of the ending, but I think that has more to do with my position as someone who has read (and loved) the graphic novel series and less to do with Edgar Wright's direction. It's a bit unfair to hold that against the film because there is much more room for pacing and setting up an ending, just like there's more room to further develop certain characters who don't get as much attention in the film... but I can't help it. Those criticisms, however real and true they are, don't sour the entire film though. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a fun and visually stunning film that geeks (like myself) will love but will also resonate with anyone in the 18-27 demographic, as well as people who love the interplay of action (and fantastical action) and comedy. Edgar Wright has done a great job with the adaptation of Brian Lee O'Malley's graphic novels and takes the magic on the page and brings it to life on film. A supremely entertaining film with a killer soundtrack as well, I give Scott Pilgrim vs. the World a B+ (though I'm grading on a bit of a curve because I'm familiar with the source material) and would definitely recommend that you go see it, especially on the big screen.
0 comments:
Post a Comment