Scott Pilgrim Vs My Eyeballs
When I first saw the trailer for “Scott Pilgrim Vs The World” I was excited to see the finished product. I have long been a fan of the work of director Edgar Wright and the movie’s recipe of nerdish pop-culture references, motion graphics, video game physics and lovable losers looked like it could be a winning formula. It hadn’t occurred to me however, that these very things were what disappointed and bugged me most about two recent films I expected to like but did not; “Zombieland” and “Kick-Ass”.
Like those aforementioned films, I left the cinema let down. “Scott Pilgrim” is an adaptation of a comic-book about a 23-year old slacker who falls in love with a delivery girl, but in order to be with her, he must defeat her “Seven Evil Exes” in video-game style confrontations. So far, so good. The problem is that director Edgar Wright from the first frame throws every single visual trick in the book onto the screen to realize this video-game world. Its not enough that the fight scenes resemble “Street Fighter II” but everything the characters do is governed by animated behavior which is drawn from not only video-games but comic books too. So, sound effects are realized as words-on-screen in a Batman-in-the-60s style, people going for a wee is represented by a diminishing “Pee Bar” like a draining battery, typography pops up all over the place, and actions are accompanied by 8-bit video-game sound effects. At first this is great, by 10 minutes into the film when its constantly happening, not so great. When the action gets going, we are treated to a constant barrage of this stuff which takes in everything from “Tekken” to “Legend of Zelda” to those Dance-dance revolution games. This leaves a mess; both visually and plotwise. As a nerd who grew up with comics and NES, I should have revelled in it, but it was too much. The effectiveness and novelty of such references were lost in the avalanche.
It reminded me in some way of “Inglorious Basterds”. A director takes elements of his style which in isolation are memorable additions to his work but stretches them out over an entire film. When Tim and Daisy in “Spaced” enter into computer-game fights in the real world the result was thrilling and original, coming as it did in the middle of a real program about people you cared about. Similarly, when Wright used his now signature quick-editing-montage in “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” it was a treat. In “Scott Pilgrim” we are witness to one long, giant pop culture reference literally represented on screen using every trick in the book. The result is exhausting.
But this is not the films only problem. I suppose I could put up with all this techno-wizardry if it accompanied the story of characters I could cheer for. Sadly, the central characters of this film are simply unlikable, mean people. A friend remarked how he just felt bad for Knives Chau, a 17-year old girl Pilgrim ditches for the girl of his dreams, Ramona. Knives does nothing wrong, but is essentially cast aside as yesterdays news in fairly cruel fashion. Yet we are supposed to root for Scott.
This film really is a classic case of style without substance. It has its moments, but most of them are already catalogued in the heavily rotated trailer. When I think about it, alongside “Zombieland” and “Kick-Ass” I wonder if I just don’t have the taste for this brand of post-modern hyper cinema. Self-referential narration, tricks of typography , music-video-editing, breaking the fourth wall, and constant pop-culture references seem to be increasingly present in films aimed at the geek market. But if all this smoke-and-mirrors just clouds shallow, whiney, unlikable characters (which populate these aforementioned three movies) the films fail to stand up. What we are left with is a self-referential circle-jerk which will eat itself.
Huh you’re really coming across as a prick on such an awesome film.
These smoke and mirrors are foundations for unqiue film stylings and a break from the mundane linear plots of other films. It seems you had your heart set on the film being exactly like the graphic novel you wish you were in.
Yes, I am a prick for not liking a film you liked.
I had my heart set on nothing sir, I can assure you.
And as for ‘mundane linear plots’? How does this film have anything other than a ‘mundane linear plot’??. Scott see’s girls, wants girl, goes after girl, gets girl. Pretty linear to me.
Righto, first off I didn’t call you a prick, I said you were coming across as one due to the fact you would make anyone who reads this post disheartened about the film. This film, which in my own _personal_ film was epic and this was a common feeling among friend, Im not doing a ‘Im right, your wrong’ gig here.
Second, yes, mundane linear plots. Im not going to spoil the entire plot for the film and as you just gave away a twist (for anyone who did not read the graphic novel, as the ends slightly varied) at the end of the film in the sixth and fifth word from the end in your reply comment. If you kept an open, non argumentative mind, you would see that in fact the plot alters its course several times.
All-in-all, I liked it, you didn’t. We’ll agree to leave people make up their own minds.
Good day sir.
Calling someone a prick and saying someone is ‘coming across’ as a prick, is pretty much the same thing. But it’s OK. I’m not hurt.
It’s a review – my intent is not to dishearten anyone, my intent is to tell people what I thought of it. By your way of thinking, should no critical reviews ever be published, lest they put people off? And by the same spirit, do you never tell people about films you didn’t like for the same reason?
I have an open, non-argumentative mind, I just didn’t like the film. Am I supposed to like every film? I went into this film expecting to like it, (as my review says). I didn’t.
And I would argue it’s not a huge spoiler in my comment. Its very obvious what was going to happen.
Scott Pilgrim as a character is actually very complex and full of reasons to hate him, but the movie actually comes to terms with it. He has a dark side that he largely ignores and “forgets” about which contributes to the entity that is introduced towards the end of the film.
However, walking into the movie and expecting every character you’re supposed to like to be rainbows and butterflies is a boring pretense. Specifically addressing the Knives side plot, every main supporting character in the movie calls him out for being a douche bag about it at some point or another, they don’t ignore it at all, so why should you attempt to?
You’re entitled to not like the movie, but it sounds like to me you’ve suffered from basic film school conditioning. You were too busy analyzing the movie to actually watch and enjoy it.
Was I exhausted at the end of Scott Pilgrim after all the fast cuts and flashy vfx? Yes. I was laughing so hard I couldn’t breathe.
I don’t expect to like every character, but I expect to like the hero of a film and the protagonists i’m supposed to root for.
Your comment about ‘film school conditioning’ i can’t accept though. It implies that if I don’t like a film, then I over-analyzed it.
Do you like every film ever? If not, what happened to the ones you did not enjoy?
I actually just watched it, and didn’t enjoy it. And this review outlines what I didn’t like about it, which I reasoned after the film had ended.
Hey,
Can I just say I wasn’t mad about the movie either. It is Ruairí’s blog so surely he can write what he wants about it. I’d be saying that even if I liked the movie. People can get so possessive over things they like. George, I think your response is very aggressive. Surely you realise that not everyone will have the same opinion, even if there’s a majority of your friends liking it there will still be people out there who don’t.
I thought the characters were really weak. And I really really disliked the ending for the same reason Ruairí did. This was a feeling I shared with the two other people I went to see it with. Maybe we look for the same things in a movie and that’s why we felt that way. If a films characters don’t draw me in and aren’t developed enough I’m not interested. It’s not a conscious decision I make it’s just how how I feel. I appreciate the visuals and originality but overall I came out with a feeling of disappointment.
A number of the characters were weak and definitely not fleshed out. All the band members were completely glossed over in character development, as well as Wallace, who I would have loved to have learned more about.
I was trying to specifically address the issue of the perceived concept of liking the main character which Ruairi mentioned.
No where was it said that you had to like the main character. He’s specifically just… less evil.
I guess a poor comparison to draw would be Dr. Horrible, where the main character is SPECIFICALLY evil, but we learn to love him because he has a soft tender side, whereas Scott Pilgrim is generically… normal having both a meh, slacker personality that is neither good or evil, just less evil than who he’s pitted against.
Instead of being romanticized as a hero, he’s just… a guy. And then they lay the pop typography and video game sound effects over it and he gets some love.
Is my previous comment aggressive? I don’t mean it to be as such. Maybe just passionate.
They took a chance by trying to do something vastly different from the mainstream by going for broke on incorporating a subculture and they’ve polarized the audience. I want to support them for the effort, but I do recognize that for a 2 hour movie, the plot has a number of holes (like Harry Potter would in the translation), but I still assert that it was enjoyable to watch and it didn’t detract from the overall experience.
At least for me.
I’ll pose a question this way, do you think a two part movie like Kill Bill would have worked for Scott Pilgrim to incorporate more character development?
Also, are you drawn enough to franchise to seek out more information by reading the comic or watching the new animated series?
And specifically to answer ruairi about my film school comment, it’s not that you didn’t like it, it’s why you said you didn’t like it. I have hated every single character in a movie and still liked the move. Dr. Strangelove is an example of that. Knocked Up is another. Hell Super Bad was pretty freaking horrible about that and I liked that too.
As far as the movies I didn’t like? Generally I don’t like M. Night Shyamalan movies. And it is because of film school conditioning and I over analyze them. What I’ve come to terms with is that even when I “turn it off” I still hate the movie because it just bleeds through. After the 3rd “You’ve got to be kidding me.” I’m pretty much done.
And yet somehow every time someone convinces me “this one’s different” and every time I feel like I’ve wasted 10 bucks.
Your welcome to keep this off the main page because I’d rather not have two comments back to back, but either way.
P.S. Your blog hits pretty high in google for Scott Pilgrim, fyi.
The more comments the better! I enjoy the debate.
Hey George,
Sorry, I’m kind of confused about whether you wrote the first couple of comments without a name on them. I assumed you did. If you didn’t, I apologise for saying you were aggressive. If you did I did find that prick comment fairly distasteful hence me saying you were aggressive.
*Spoilers*
I agree with you about not having to like a character to enjoy a movie. I do think in Scott Pilgrim however for some of the storyline to work you do have to like him a bit. I mean for Scott to reject Knives and get with Ramona at the end, for me it didn’t feel like he was deserving of either of them. And in that way it felt quite unrealistic and wrong to be on Scotts side. I’m pretty much reiterating what Ruairí’s already said. But I really do think in the way the ending was done it didn’t work all because Scott is such an unlikable character.
I do feel that the movie would have worked so much better as a two part film. I listened to an interview with Edgar Wright and he said they pretty much only had funding for 1 movie so decided it was best to cram everything in. That’s the biggest flaw of the movie. Because it’s based on 6 comics the development of the characters and storyline has ended up rushed and depthless. Honestly I think it’s a shame, because I think had it been two movies they could have improved on that. Also they wouldn’t have had to fuck around with the ending. Oh well…
I haven’t seen Scott Pilgrim Vs My Eyeballs so I really can’t comment.