I have to admit upfront that I’ve read the first five Scott Pilgrim books, and I don’t think it’s possible for me to review the movie without drawing comparisons. I’ll do my best to be accessible to those that haven’t read the comics, but really my recommendation is that you just read the comics, and then see the movie, and then come back and read my review again.
I’ll start out by saying that Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is every bit as good as I hoped it would be, and much better than it likely would have been had anybody but Edgar Wright directed it. Wright has proven in the past that he has a particular skill for action comedies that come at their genre blending in new and unique ways, which is exactly what this film calls for. Wright achieves that perfect balance between cartoony violence and genuine emotion that makes Brian O’Malley’s comics so memorable, and expands that balance in new cinematic directions. As in the comics, Wright makes it clear that the video game-esque battles are a metaphor for the tribulations of a messy love life, while also establishing that the battles are just as real, diegetically, as anything else in Scott’s life.
That said, battles with seven evil exes crammed into one movie make it a little wearying. It’s helpful that two of the exes are twins who challenge Scott simultaneously, but by that time you’re already wondering how long it’s going to take to get to the main guy. Other than the twins, though, all of the exes are very distinct, which is nice. Brandon Routh (the last guy to play Superman) and Chris Evans (the next guy to play Captain America) are both standouts, and Mae Whitman is a welcome addition to any ensemble. Jason Schwartzman is good too (like that’s a surprise), but by the time he shows up the whole ex-battling conceit just seems tired.
On the subject of casting, I understand that some people are tired of him, but I think Michael Cera was absolutely the right choice to play Scott. The whole thing about Scott Pilgrim is that he has this ridiculous talent for super-fighting, even though he seems like the last guy that would. If he was portrayed by an actor who’s even the tiniest bit more conventionally masculine (like that kid from Zombieland, for instance) the balance wouldn’t work as well. The same thing applies, for different reasons, to Scott’s clumsy mistreatment of the women in his life. Michael Cera is this guy who’s well into his 20′s, but you can believe he’s still basically a little boy. If he seemed like a full grown man, he’d just come off as a tool.
The women in Scott’s life are handled well, although they do seem to suffer the most for the condensation of the story. It’s most glaring with Ramona, because the need for her to be enigmatic in the beginning ends up leaving very little time for real characterization. She escapes the ‘Manic Pixie Dreamgirl’ trap, but she’s far closer to it than she ever came in the comics. Kim Pine is pitch-perfect, but also comes off as much less complex than her comic book counterpart. Knives Chau fares the best of all the female characters. She still loses some scenes (and her father is entirely cut from the story), but her slow transformation from desperate-and-naive to cooler-than-Scott is portrayed to perfection by Ellen Wong.
I could name plenty of other things I liked (the music, Kieran Culkin as Wallace) and disliked (Scott never moving out or getting a job), but I think I’ve said enough for now. The movie is no substitute for the comics, but it’s a great adaptation, and ought to make you happy whether you’re already a Pilgrim fan or just a filmgoer looking for something with plenty of indie rock, romance, and ninja fights.
In retrospect, maybe that’s what Garden State was missing… ninja fights.
Full disclosure: I went to college with the guys who made this. I’m not in the habit of posting stuff just because it was made by people I know, but I genuinely think this is the funniest YouTube video I’ve seen in quite a while.
I’m not particularly funny myself, but I’m a little obsessed with the theory of comedy. I’ve always been interested in what’s funny and why, and I think this video does a few important things right that almost all attempts at online humor get wrong. First of all, it’s extremely short and simple. There’s no exposition, and in fact no words at all. Consequently, it’s paced like lightning and has no chance to drag. The video starts, the funny bit happens immediately, and it’s over in less than a minute. There’s nothing you could add to this that would actually make it better.
Secondly, it’s not a reference to anything. It’s funny because it’s funny, not because it’s a clever riff on something that happened on South Park or Saturday Night Live or Scarface. This has the added benefit of making the comedy timeless. You could show this to someone in 1934 or 1958 or 2309, and they’d think it was funny. There’s nothing wrong with heavily referential metacomedy, but it’s taken over our culture to an unfortunate degree (I’m looking at you, Seth McFarlane). It’s refreshing to see someone create humor without leaning on that same crutch.
Perhaps most importantly, the actors are totally committed and take the bit seriously. Perhaps I’m biased, because I happen to know that Matt and Jon graduated from an excellent theatre school, but their facial expressions and movements all have a reality to them that a lot of “acted” comedy videos on YouTube are entirely missing. There’s no point when you can see either of them thinking. “Man, this is going to be so funny when we put it on YouTube!” They each take their roles in this minute-long comedy as seriously as if it were epic drama, which is what you have to do to make something funny.
I said in my last entry that I wasn’t planning a memorial post about Larry Gelbart (writer of some of the 20th Century’s funniest stuff), but I did want to let you know that my film guru mentor Dr. Jay Malarcher, who was Gelbart’s friend and biographer, has written a wonderful tribute to the comedy legend over atZagreblog.
Since I don’t really have anything to add to his words, I’ll leave you with a funny scene from one of Gelbart’s most celebrated works, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum:
Prior to this film, I admit I’ve stayed away from the Mumblecore movement. Not that there was anything I objected to about it, just that I’ve been otherwise occupied. So I can’t really comment on how Lynn Shelton’s Humpday fits into that context. On its own merits, though, it definitely lives up to the positive buzz it’s received.
This is a pretty simple movie about two straight guys who decide to have sex and film it. Having been aware of this premise going in, I was really impressed with how believable it was. Thanks to a fully realized dynamic between the characters and an escalating sense of pressure, I was ready to buy that these were two genuinely heterosexual men who were seriously planning to sleep together. Andrew (Josh Leonard) is a globetrotting Bohemian who calls himself an artist but has a problem finishing actual projects. Ben (Mark Duplass) is his best friend from college, who has settled down with a wife and an office job. When the idea of them screwing on film comes up at a party, neither of them is willing to be the sort of person who can’t do something like this. Andrew knows he’s 100% straight, and feels on some level that being thus limited is a betrayal of his values. Ben loves his wife and the life he’s built with her, but feels like he might have settled down before he really figured himself out.
The acting is what really makes this film work, and it is stellar. The naturalistic dialogue is believable enough, but the facial expressions of the actors, particularly in the many moments of awkward silence, approach the sublime. Leonard, Duplass, and Alicia Delmore as Ben’s wife Anne are all so exceptional I’m not sure I could even pick a favorite. Although sex is central to the plot, Humpday is all about intercourse in the other sense of the word. The joy of the movie is in watching these three people pair off in every possible combination for intense, awkward, and funny one-on-one conversations.
The view of masculinity presented in the film is extremely refreshing. In fact, it makes the stuff that passes for groundbreaking in Hollywood (the emotions expressed between men in Judd Apatow films, for example) seem absurdly limited. There’s also a lot of truth expressed in the argument between Ben and Andrew about whether or not there’s an uncrossable line between their lifestyles. It turns out that Andrew, who’s supposedly the open-minded one, has a more black and white view of things than Ben. Ben’s frustration at this rings true for anyone who’s ever gotten trapped in the role of the square in a group of artists.
As the big event draws closer, it remains impossible to predict whether or not the guys will go through with the deed. Once the question is answered, though, it seems impossible that it could have gone any other way. My one complaint about the film is that aspects of the ending seem slightly by-the-book for an indie film, but every previous moment is so perfect that I’m more than willing to overlook that minor problem.
Prior to this film, I admit I’ve stayed away from the Mumblecore movement. Not that there was anything I objected to about it, just that I’ve been otherwise occupied. So I can’t really comment on how Lynn Shelton’s Humpday fits into that context. On its own merits, though, it definitely lives up to the positive buzz it’s received.
