Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010)

I wanted so much to love every single thing about this film...and to a point I do. To a point. I've only just recently watched director Edgar Wright's previous films (by "recently", I mean at the beginning of this year), and had gone through artist Bryan Lee O'Malley's 6-volume series several times before this film premiered, and had been building up hope upon hope with every frame of footage and bit of news that was released. I had even gone to a Q&A with the cast and director a few days before the release up in New York. And this film has so much going for it, so much charm, so much energy...but it just barely trips at the finish line. Don't get me wrong, I love this film to death (I did catch it twice in theaters), but it didn't deliver what I had hoped it would.

The plot, in case you don't know, involves title character Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera), a 23-year-old slacker living with a gay roommate, Wallace Wells (the incredibly likable and funny Kieran Culkin), who plays in a garage band trying to make it big called Sex Bob-Bomb. He has just gotten together with Knives Chau (Ellen Wong), a 17-year-old who idolizes him, and has very little prospects of ever actually growing up (or getting a job for that matter). However, when he meets the literal girl of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), he forgets about Knives entirely, and focuses on winning Ramona's heart...which involves defeating her seven exes in various, fantasy-themed forms of combat. I know, reading that, it sounds kinda stupid. IT IS NOT. The film is fashioned after the side-scrolling video games of the late 1980's, early-1990's (complete with special moves, scoreboard, Double-Dragon-type twins, extra lives, and villains who turn into coins when they're defeated), each ex being defeated in decidedly different fashions and with different abilities. The film is rife is pop culture references, a trend in film-making that has become so common that it has spawned a new genre: Meta Films.

However, back to the movie...

The movie is great, a fun, energetic, fast-paced, visually amazing film with a lot to please fans of the comic, Edgar Wright, and fans of pop culture. However, there are some glaring flaws that keep it from greatness, the biggest of which is its lead actor.

Michael Cera, while presumably the most bankable star, is miscast. Scott Pilgrim, the character, is a slacker, yes, but he's also amazingly excitable, and not as sedate and seemingly laid-back as Cera portrays him. As much as I'd wanted to believe otherwise, this is very much "Michael Cera playing Michael Cera...with flaming swords"; that opinion became much more apparent on a second viewing. However, again, Cera is the most bankable star, and would be the only real recognizable face used to sell the film (although this apparently backfired). Had production waited a few years, I might even be able to envision Jimmy Bennett in the role...if only he weren't 14.

However, the rest of the cast fares incredibly well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is incredibly attractive, although she seems entirely too cool for the likes of Scott, or any of his friends for that matter (sometimes her hairpiece got a bit distracting too), but otherwise she nailed the role and seemed more than capable in her action scenes. The supporting players more than embodied their roles, at times looking literally like the character as drawn (such as with Marc Webber, Brandon Routh, Aubrey Plaza, and Kieran Culkin). And, speaking of Kieran Culkin, every scene that man was in he owned, hands down; from the comic timing to the staging to the editing choices (I know, it wasn't Kieran's decisions, but still), he ruled every scene in which he appeared. Allison Pill as Kim Pine, however, seemed to actively hate Scott and everything he did so much that it seemed slightly unlikely that she and he would remain friends (although that is tied up nicely by the end of the film). Ellen Wong, for her part, plays the enamored, enraptured high-school-fake-girlfriend very well, just bordering on being annoying, but never crossing that border; the look of heartbreak when Scott breaks up with her seems genuine, and one can't help but feel sorry for her. Of the changes between the comic and the film, her resolution with Scott helps make her transformation into a more mature person that much believable.

Now...the changes from the comic...

Adapting an extensive, dense work such as this would have been difficult for any lesser director, but Edgar Wright accomplishes it impressively (but not flawlessly). One of the major problems of the film (and, to an extent, the comics themselves) is that there is no real explanation as to what it is that makes Ramona so special: she appears in Scott's dreams, plays mysterious in regards to her past, and dresses like the alt-hipster that she appears to be. The core components that make her unique and special when compared to the other characters is hinted at in the comics, but in the film she merely appears and Scott is smitten immediately. While it doesn't make her any less of character, it did slightly annoy me that I couldn't really see exactly what it was that Scott saw in her (and the fact that she became dismissive of him much more quickly in the film than in the comics made her seem incredibly fickle).

The time line in the film rushed several plot threads together into a single night (the film goes from Scott fighting Roxy to facing the Kataynagi Twins seemingly the next day; the Clash At Demonhead is introduced and Kyle defeated within the same night). The beauty and fun of the comic series is the time taken to get to know each character, know who they are, their history, their relation to each other, and so forth. The subplots broadened the fantasy world, legitimizing it by creating situations to which the reader could relate, and enriched the minor characters (although Stephen Stills' transformation in the comic seemed somewhat trite). In comparison, the film made the same mistake the final book in the series seemed to make: it focused purely and solely on Scott and on the fights he had to undergo to win Ramona. Again, with someone who is moderately uncharismatic as Cera in the lead, focusing purely on his relationship with Ramona, who is fascinating for reasons not purely explained, relegates every other character to second-tier status and makes Ramona little more than a trophy for him to earn. Knives Chau and even Gideon Graves were more charismatic and interesting to watch.

It might seem as if I'm ragging on this film, but I genuinely do like it and know that it will be a constant rewatch. From the non-stop pop culture references (from the Seinfeld theme drop; the bad guys turning into coins when they're killed...and they ARE killed...to the use of the Zelda theme, the outright kineticism, speed, tone, power-ups...EVERYTHING!), to the visual gags, the set design, the incredible lighting, editing techniques...COMPLETE LACK OF CUTS LESS THAN 2 SECONDS IN LENGTH...everything is fun. Absolutely fun. And the charm and fun of this film is what makes it so great, so memorable, so excitingly alive. No other film this year is so in love with itself (in a good way) and so charming and sincere that it trumps its flaws.

Is this the best film ever made? No. Is it fun? Yes. Is it exciting? Yes, once you get its central conceit. Is it underrated? For the time being, but, in years, it will become a cult film, I can sense it. Is it worth watching? YES. Absolutely yes. It's so hard to get excited with modern action films when "angst" and "gritty" is supposed to equate "sincerity" and "excitement". Here, Scott Pilgrim is gaily wailing on bad guys with a flaming sword conjured out of pure love, to a rocking soundtrack by Beck, and he's doing it in broad daylight and enjoying every minute of it. I sat down expecting to love this film, and I wasn't disappointed. It's a relief to know that cinema-going can be fun again. "Continue?" Yes, of course...

A Nightmare On Elm Street (Remake)

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

Freddy Kreuger has been given a facelift of sorts in this remake by director Samuel Bayer, who is known for his music video direction (and also as the director of Nirvana's “Smells Like Teen Spirit”). Here he brings a somewhat grungy look to the film but, unfortunately, it wasn't enough to save this film, which played out predictably and felt on par with a film school or high school student's attempt to make a convincing horror film. Missing was any real sense of dread, fear, unnerving, or suspense, all of that being replaced by an appreciation for Jackie Earle Haley's interpretation of Kreuger, and a sense of annoyance that I was instead noting the plot-based flaws of the film rather than truly getting involved with it. While I am a moderate fan of the original series (I remember watching the sequels mostly, not so much the original film), I did not mind some of the differences with some of the sequences (although I did miss Johnny Depp exploding out of a television screen), and I think this iteration of Kreuger is much more skeevy and unnerving, while at the same not having a clearly defined motivation (more on that later). Much of the atmosphere is created with tired cliches (including the musical cues, rainy exteriors, etc.), supported by a horrible script (although Freddy does get the best lines).

The film starts solidly enough with a teaser involving Crissy (Katie Cassidy) and her boyfriend, Dean (Kellan Lutz), as they meet up during the middle of some rainy night at a diner. Dean admits he hasn't slept in 3 days, and the reason is that he keeps having a dream involving a man in a hat (guess who it is?). Crissy for some reason finds what he's saying to be ludicrous, and she disappears for a few moments. Dean winds up falling asleep and immediately dreaming about Freddy, and the two fight briefly before Freddy overpowers him and slices his neck open with a table knife (the kind that doesn't really cut too well. Why Freddy would use a table knife while his entire right hand is a knife is not explained.) From her perspective, Crissy only sees Dean struggling with himself before jamming the knife into his neck.

The teaser worked well. Every single character in the movie is introduced (literally all the main characters witness the event. One of the faults of this film is the fact that the only characters that seem to exist are the victims. They don't have any friends outside of each other, and we aren't introduced to anyone other than them; this last part would be helpful in shaping out the inevitable sequel by having characters that were introduced in previous installments, but, alas...), the mood is set, and the throat-slitting is graphic and shocking enough (but not too much). The next scene, though, is where the film started to fall hopelessly apart.

Dean is buried in a graveyard. Naturally. At the wake are the main characters to whom we'd just been introduced, and their parents (who are all single. I have a theory for this...). And then Crissy sees a little girl with red slashes across her chest. No one else seems to notice the little girl except her. Crissy gets up to investigate, and out of the ground Freddy's clawed hand shoots out and grabs her ankle; Crissy then wakes up screaming to the confused faces of the other attendees. Crissy fell asleep at her boyfriend's funeral. She had watched her boyfriend get horrendously murdered in a fashion that could only be described as suicide. And she fell asleep at his funeral. Who the fuck does that? I can only imagine that the people staring at her in the scene were wondering the same thing, what this heartless bitch is doing at this funeral. This scene immediately took me out of the movie and for the remainder of the runtime I was more interested in the cinematic techniques employed throughout and the plot holes than about anything that was actually occurring onscreen.

And these cinematic techniques are of the type employed by first-year film students and directors being ironic, rather than the director of the video for “Smells Like Teen Spirit”, as well as music videos for Garbage, Green Day, and the Cranberries (among others). This was an unbelievably bland, lifeless horror film that telegraphed every scare it attempted to make, and perhaps the leap from 4-5 minute-long video director to narrative feature film was one that Mr. Bayer was unable to make. Nothing in the film seemed genuine, everything was contrived, and the updated nods to the original (Freddy's hand coming out of the bathtub; Crissy's mid-air death; Freddy coming out of the wall) were pointlessly added for no purpose other than to show how much more effective they were in the original film, which utilized limited resources and budget.

I would normally not want to compare a remake with the original film upon which it was based, but instead try to judge the film on its own merits; but here, the comparisons need to be made. The original 1984 film sported a gritty, washed-out look with highly contrasting use of light and shadows. Moreso, the dream sequences themselves were decidedly surreal, possessing an almost Jungian sense of dread. Coupling that with a concept that is still among the most unique in the horror genre (a killer that manifests himself in the dreams of his victims), and you've got yourself one of the most memorable of horror films (and a classic, wholly original horror villain). What this remake failed to take into account was the fact that the limitations of the original filmmakers meant pushing themselves to create something truly terrifying, and one way to do that was to focus on the undercurrent of the story. The 1984 original, at its core, was about parents who went too far in protecting their children, and in doing so guaranteed the very danger they were hoping to avoid, a danger which manifested itself during the one time of the day where a person should feel absolutely safe. This film is saying nothing that subtle.

Jackie Earle Haley does give a lot of effort in his portrayal of Freddy, adding subtle touches to distinguish himself from Robert Englund: Haley's is a much more sadistic Freddy, lacking the overt wit and (surprising to say) charm that Englund exuded. While it is hinted at that Haley's Freddy is enjoying what he's doing (referring to his slaughtering of his victims as “playing”) it is never really shown. This Freddy does not outwardly enjoy the fact that he can manifest himself in the dreamscapes of his victims. Haley's habit of rubbing two of his bladed fingers together, as if he can't wait to get down to the slicing and dicing, is a great touch, but then the damage he inflicts is comparatively minimal (given the budget this film has, you'd think something would top the Freddy tendon-marionette-kill from Elm Street 4...or 3...I don't remember which sequel it was). Another lingering question: what the fuck does Freddy want? Does he want to just kill the kids? At first, that's what I thought, and figured that he could just get it over with in a few nights. But then, later on in the film, he tells Nancy that the reason he's “alive” is because their memories keep him alive...but they didn't even remember him until he started showing up in their dreams, and he started showing up in their dreams to torment them, but to also lead them to the cellar of the preschool where he worked and molested them so that they could...remember? Right? So...if his goal is to make them remember him, thus keeping him “alive” somehow, then why would he want to kill them? And if he wants to just up and kill them, then why waste time with all that “he wants us to go back so we can remember” bullshit? C'mon, Frddy! You live in dreams and have a bladed hand! Be interesting, for God's sake! What's your motivation! Someone! Someone in this movie, make sense! How could your friend have been said to have "died in their sleep" when they are eviscerated? And what the fuck is up with just cutting Freddy's neck and assuming that'll do the trick, Nancy? You just pulled the dude out of your sub-fucking-conscious and dragged him into the real world...you take that board cutter and you hack Freddy for, like, 8 hours until he's a bunch of tiny pieces, and then you take those pieces and burn them, and then you take the ashes, put them in 20 cardboard boxes, and sink those in 20 different lakes! That's what you do! Not, "Oh, paper cut. That'll do it. Yeah, he's dead. Let's go fuck." FUCK YOU, MOVIE!

In fact, Haley's is the only performance worth noting...or the only thing worth noting to make this Goddamned movie bearable. Mara Rooney as heroine Nancy Holbrook was (as with Kyle Gallner's Quentin Smith) unbelievably bland and boring, lacking any of the transformative arc present in the original: here, both Nancy and Quentin are first presented as fucked-up and depressed, made-up and dressed up as if they walked off a Death Cab For Cutie video. The psychological aspect of Freddy ---he drives normal, clean-cut kids into sleep-deprived maniacs--- is completely lacking, as the characters start off at that point to begin with. There's no nuance, no substance, nothing truly deeper going on rather than “There's a killer who kills people in their dreams. That's cool...right? Guys?”

For a film that boasts a budget that easily could've financed the original film several times over, this film is a cheap, empty cash grab that defuses the inherent psychological horror of Freddy Kreuger. This film is a forgettable and derivative as the washed-out color scheme of the not-very-original-looking dream-scapes. And the worst part? The final scene promises a sequel. Rent it only, and even then, just to compare to the original. And trust me...you'll sleep as soundly as I did in the theater.

I hate this movie.