What was the last movie you've seen?

[noiseredux]

The chick who plays Ramona is genuinely cute.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead rules. Though not so much in Scott Pilgrim. Did you see Deathproof? She's a cheerleader!! And she's great in Black X-Mas. etc.

[REPO Man]

The chick who plays Ramona is genuinely cute.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead rules. Though not so much in Scott Pilgrim. Did you see Deathproof? She's a cheerleader!! And she's great in Black X-Mas. etc.

Agreed. And Knives is cute, too. Ang logic dictates that even if she was the same age as her character, the actress would be legal. But I disagree with the "fatass white girl" statement. Ramona's curvey, not fat.

[Mendoza]

Predators (2010) – I have a big soft spot for both of the original Predator films, and I even found something enjoyable in the first AVP film. I was excited for this film, even though I had doubts about Adrian Brody being able to pull off the lead tough guy role. In the end I felt that Predators was better than AVP2, but about on par with Predator 2 or AVP. The biggest fault was the pacing – the film really drags in the middle sections. It also ends without a decent resolution. That said, there’s some great action sequences, the actors are all competent enough (including Brody), and there’s a nice balance of new ideas and series mythos.
Grade: 2.5/5

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010) - Ok, first the good stuff. The idea of bandmates named Stephen Stills and Young Neil is awesome. The chick who plays Ramona is genuinely cute. As a giant Smashing Pumpkins fan, I appreciated the nods to that band in several places. And…..that’s about it. Look, I genuinely tried to watch this movie without any predispositions. I liked Cera in Arrested Development and even in Superbad and Juno. I also like Jason Schwartzman and have a lot of love for Nigel Goodrich. I can appreciate the artistic style of the graphic novel. I certainly would like to see a movie incorporate game references well. I am a big fan of most quirky indie films. My biggest problem with this film – and I have many – is the incredibly strained attempt to be quirky and inventive . To personify the film a bit, it strikes me that it is very much like the characters in the film –a hipster who is trying too hard. The pop culture references are forced, the vast majority of the special effects detract rather than add to the film, and the video game nods come off as obnoxious and shoehorned. Cera is more annoying here than any character I’ve seen in a film in a while, and he’s completely unlikable and unsympathetic as the lead. I won’t even get into the plot itself as I am pretty sure that everyone who has seen the film recognizes that it is a mess of bad pacing, pandering storytelling, horrendous writing, and problematic continuity. I can only assume that the love for this film comes from some appreciation of the combination of all these elements to create a “so bad its good” kind of B-grade film. The problem is that there’s far too much about this film that smacks of a big Hollywood production for that to be convincing. It isn’t funny. It isn’t quirky. It isn’t clever. It isn’t fun. I’d love to hear what people see in it, but I think it is one of the worst films I’ve sat through in recent memory.
Grade: 1/5

The predators comic continues the story. Its not too bad.

I think they still did a hell of a lot right in this movie, particularly when looking at the two avp movies we got to sit through before this.

[Gamerforlife]

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010) - Ok, first the good stuff. The idea of bandmates named Stephen Stills and Young Neil is awesome. The chick who plays Ramona is genuinely cute. As a giant Smashing Pumpkins fan, I appreciated the nods to that band in several places. And…..that’s about it. Look, I genuinely tried to watch this movie without any predispositions. I liked Cera in Arrested Development and even in Superbad and Juno. I also like Jason Schwartzman and have a lot of love for Nigel Goodrich. I can appreciate the artistic style of the graphic novel. I certainly would like to see a movie incorporate game references well. I am a big fan of most quirky indie films. My biggest problem with this film – and I have many – is the incredibly strained attempt to be quirky and inventive . To personify the film a bit, it strikes me that it is very much like the characters in the film –a hipster who is trying too hard. The pop culture references are forced, the vast majority of the special effects detract rather than add to the film, and the video game nods come off as obnoxious and shoehorned. Cera is more annoying here than any character I’ve seen in a film in a while, and he’s completely unlikable and unsympathetic as the lead. I won’t even get into the plot itself as I am pretty sure that everyone who has seen the film recognizes that it is a mess of bad pacing, pandering storytelling, horrendous writing, and problematic continuity. I can only assume that the love for this film comes from some appreciation of the combination of all these elements to create a “so bad its good” kind of B-grade film. The problem is that there’s far too much about this film that smacks of a big Hollywood production for that to be convincing. It isn’t funny. It isn’t quirky. It isn’t clever. It isn’t fun. I’d love to hear what people see in it, but I think it is one of the worst films I’ve sat through in recent memory.
Grade: 1/5

You're actually the only person I know of to have bashed Scott Pilgrim actually. So I don't get where the "everyone who has seen the film recognizes that it is a mess of bad pacing, pandering storytelling, horrendous writing, and problematic continuity" is coming from. And Scott Pilgrim is the very antithesis of a big Hollywood production. Hence, its low box office. This isn't the kind of movie Hollywood usually pumps out.

I don't see how Scott is unlikeable or unsympathetic. How can you NOT feel bad for a guy getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of ex-boyfriends of the girl he loves. A lot of his anger is justified. Sure, he can be a jerk at some points in the movie. However, he gets humbled quite a few times in the movie and admits later to being a bit of a jerk to the women in his life. He apologizes to everyone, even the girl who has turned his life into a living hell. If you can't like him at that point in the movie, then you're a pretty harsh person. Also, Ramona is kind of an effed up character herself. So it fits that someone who doesn't handle relationships well like Scott would be perfect for her. They're both screwed up and that's why they work well as a couple

As for the strained attempt at being quirky and inventive. I certainly can't think of any other movie with Scott Pilgrim's style. The special effects all fit in with its visual style. The movie would have sucked without them. This is a video game world we're talking about. Of course, there is going to be crazy special effects and crazy looking things. As for the video game nods being obnoxious. I can only imagine that being true for someone who DOESN'T like video games. Also, what you call shoehorned in is just you not understanding or appreciating what the movie is trying to do stylistically

I find it highly unusual for ANYONE on this forum to hate the movie. It's fun, funny, fresh,original and pretty much a love letter to retro gamers. Seriously, this isn't hipster garbage. It's a move about games for people who love games. How the heck can anyone on this forum hate on that? Does not compute. That's like someone joining the racketboy forums and saying, "I hate retro games"

A 1 out of 5? Seriously? I'm glad you're not a movie critic

At least, we can agree on one thing though, the Scott Pilgrim video game sucks

[dsheinem]

You're actually the only person I know of to have bashed Scott Pilgrim actually.

I can't be alone. Surely some other folks here feel the same?

And Scott Pilgrim is the very antithesis of a big Hollywood production. Hence, its low box office. This isn't the kind of movie Hollywood usually pumps out.

It is exactly the kind of targeted demographic movie that Hollywood DOES pump out on a regular basis and pays good money for on the gamble that the audience is there. It had a $90 million dollar budget, which is evident by the slick (but pointless) CGI throughout. It had big names (Cera, Schwartzman, Goodrich, etc.) - all of that cost money as well. By contrast the other film I reviewed above (Predators) only cost $40 million.

I don't see how Scott is unlikeable or unsympathetic. How can you NOT feel bad for a guy getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of ex-boyfriends of the girl he loves. A lot of his anger is justified. Sure, he can be a jerk at some points in the movie. However, he gets humbled quite a few times in the movie and admits later to being a bit of a jerk to the women in his life. He apologizes to everyone, even the girl who has turned his life into a living hell. If you can't like him at that point in the movie, then you're a pretty harsh person

I'm not a harsh person, and I completely "got" his redemption story throughout. But Cera is never likable from the get go because he is obviously such a total loser with zero self esteem and even less charisma. I like to root for the little guy, but they have to have some redeeming qualities. Whatever those qualities were, Cera could not communicate them. The fights and the rest did nothing to change my opinion of him, even at the end. Also, he should have left Ramona after she hardcore blue-balled him on the first date

Of course, there is going to be crazy special effects and crazy looking things. As for the video game nods being obnoxious. I can only imagine that being true for someone who DOESN'T like video games. Also, what you call shoehorned in is just you not understanding or appreciating what the movie is trying to do stylistically

What do you think I don't appreciate? I "got" all the video game effects and why they put them in there, but they were either lame effects or clearly put in just to focus on the effect. Inserting a "pee meter" when he goes the bathroom or a "1-up" when he finds his spine for two seconds is shoehorning them in there.

I find it highly unusual for ANYONE on this forum to hate the movie. It's fun, funny, fresh,original and pretty much a love letter to retro gamers. Seriously, this isn't hipster garbage. It's a move about games for people who love games.

How is it a movie about games? It is a romantic (comedy?) film that draws on games for some of its ideas and effects.

How the heck can anyone on this forum hate on that? Does not compute. That's like someone joining the racketboy forums and saying, "I hate retro games"

No, it isn't the same thing at all and I don't appreciate the insinuation that if you hate this movie you must hate video games. I would love to see a film about games done well, but Scott Pilgrim is far from a good example.

A 1 out of 5? Seriously? I'm glad you're not a movie critic

I do consider myself a bit of a movie critic, and I even teach a college course on film...so I am not talking out of my ass. I understand the craft, have extensive knowledge of the history of cinema, and can hold my own in any conversation about film. I can recognize an overwrought Hollywood target film when I see one, and this is a prime example. The closest example I can think of would be something like the first Twilight film.

At least, we can agree on one thing though, the Scott Pilgrim video game sucks

Agreed. But the movie is MUCH worse.

[noiseredux]

I'd give it like a 2.5 out 5. I think my review was like "I was amused while watching, but when it ended thought -- ok, I saw it. I won't ever watch it again."

[elmagicochrisg]

But Cera is never likable from the get go because he is obviously such a total loser with zero self esteem and even less charisma. I like to root for the little guy, but they have to have some redeeming qualities. Whatever those qualities were, Cera could not communicate them. The fights and the rest did nothing to change my opinion of him, even at the end. Also, he should have left Ramona after she hardcore blue-balled him on the first date

This...

Kinda starts to annoy me how many movies they make nowadays with wimpy characters that are supposed to be likeable because they are sensitive, or shy, or dreamy, or whatever... That was my first thought when watching this movie. So yeah, to quote dsheinem some more:

It is exactly the kind of targeted demographic movie that Hollywood DOES pump out on a regular basis and pays good money for on the gamble that the audience is there.

[Gamerforlife]

You're actually the only person I know of to have bashed Scott Pilgrim actually.

I can't be alone. Surely some other folks here feel the same?

And Scott Pilgrim is the very antithesis of a big Hollywood production. Hence, its low box office. This isn't the kind of movie Hollywood usually pumps out.

It is exactly the kind of targeted demographic movie that Hollywood DOES pump out on a regular basis and pays good money for on the gamble that the audience is there. It had a $90 million dollar budget, which is evident by the slick (but pointless) CGI throughout. It had big names (Cera, Schwartzman, Goodrich, etc.) - all of that cost money as well. By contrast the other film I reviewed above (Predators) only cost $40 million.

I don't see how Scott is unlikeable or unsympathetic. How can you NOT feel bad for a guy getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of ex-boyfriends of the girl he loves. A lot of his anger is justified. Sure, he can be a jerk at some points in the movie. However, he gets humbled quite a few times in the movie and admits later to being a bit of a jerk to the women in his life. He apologizes to everyone, even the girl who has turned his life into a living hell. If you can't like him at that point in the movie, then you're a pretty harsh person

I'm not a harsh person, and I completely "got" his redemption story throughout. But Cera is never likable from the get go because he is obviously such a total loser with zero self esteem and even less charisma. I like to root for the little guy, but they have to have some redeeming qualities. Whatever those qualities were, Cera could not communicate them. The fights and the rest did nothing to change my opinion of him, even at the end. Also, he should have left Ramona after she hardcore blue-balled him on the first date

Of course, there is going to be crazy special effects and crazy looking things. As for the video game nods being obnoxious. I can only imagine that being true for someone who DOESN'T like video games. Also, what you call shoehorned in is just you not understanding or appreciating what the movie is trying to do stylistically

What do you think I don't appreciate? I "got" all the video game effects and why they put them in there, but they were either lame effects or clearly put in just to focus on the effect. Inserting a "pee meter" when he goes the bathroom or a "1-up" when he finds his spine for two seconds is shoehorning them in there.

I find it highly unusual for ANYONE on this forum to hate the movie. It's fun, funny, fresh,original and pretty much a love letter to retro gamers. Seriously, this isn't hipster garbage. It's a move about games for people who love games.

How is it a movie about games? It is a romantic (comedy?) film that draws on games for some of its ideas and effects.

How the heck can anyone on this forum hate on that? Does not compute. That's like someone joining the racketboy forums and saying, "I hate retro games"

No, it isn't the same thing at all and I don't appreciate the insinuation that if you hate this movie you must hate video games. I would love to see a film about games done well, but Scott Pilgrim is far from a good example.

A 1 out of 5? Seriously? I'm glad you're not a movie critic

I do consider myself a bit of a movie critic, and I even teach a college course on film...so I am not talking out of my ass. I understand the craft, have extensive knowledge of the history of cinema, and can hold my own in any conversation about film. I can recognize an overwrought Hollywood target film when I see one, and this is a prime example. The closest example I can think of would be something like the first Twilight film.

At least, we can agree on one thing though, the Scott Pilgrim video game sucks

Agreed. But the movie is MUCH worse.

It's not a romantic comedy that draws some ideas from games. It draws ALL of its ideas from games and frankly, the movie avoids a lot of romcom cliches. It's probably more accurately a comic book movie. A comic book that happens to be all about video games

What's wrong with the 1up? How is that shoehorned in? The guy died, so he used a 1up for an extra life. That's pretty much how 1ups work in video games. It makes sense by video game logic and Scott lives in a video game world. Seeing how it makes the whole final act possible, I don't see how it can be considered shoehorned in

And yes, you ARE a harsh person. The whole paragraph saying you aren't actually shows that you are. You hated him from the get go? Because he's not a perfect, flawless protaganist with loads of self esteem and charm? Frankly, the whole storyline wouldn't have worked if he was. The whole reason for Scott and Ramona's attraction is that they are both very flawed. Yeah, she blue balled him, but he's done some pretty crappy things to people he's dated too. Certainly doesn't make her any worse a person than he was

Big Hollywood productions are usually based on a "sure thing" which a movie as odd as Scott Pilgrim certainly wasn't. It doesn't follow any recognizable formula at all. And no, there aren't any big actors. I'm sorry but unless we're talking Brad Pitts, Angelina Jolies, Ben Afflecks, Morgan Freeman, Christian Bales, etc. than we're not talking big name actors. Scott Pilgrim's actors are are B level actors, which is typical with Edgar Wright movies. They've made a name for themselves sure, but they aren't a "sure thing" like someone like say, Johhny Depp. Scott Pilgrim is in no way, shape or form your typical blockbuster Hollywood production. Despite production costs, it's got indie written all over it as most Hollywood movies aren't this original and quirky. The average comic book blockbuster is more much formulaic than Scott Pilgrim was and makes for an easier sell to a Hollywood exec. I could say the same about your average romcom

And again, your criticisms of the CGI, effects, etc. don't make sense. Video games are primarily a visual based medium. Moreso than movies. Any game set in a video game world rather than a realistic setting is going to have lots of that stuff. Also, as I often point out on this forum, most games exist in a bizzaro world that is completely unlike reality in any way. The so called "pointless" CGI and effects, as well as the so-called "shoehorned" in things like the 1up and pee meter all serve to reinforce that. I just don't see how any gamer doesn't get that. They should get it moreso than the nongamers watching

And Scott Pilgrim is the ONLY movie about games I have seen done well, because it acknowledges how ludicrous many of them are and plays with that idea. It's a very smart and self aware movie, which like a lot of smart things in our culture today gets quickly labelled, "hipster" and frowned upon

And I certainly respect your film knowledge, but it doesn't mean you're always right. I see people everyday who are supposedly experts in their field and still don't get a lot of things

[dsheinem]

It's not a romantic comedy that draws some ideas from games. It draws ALL of its ideas from games and frankly, the movie avoids a lot of romcom cliches. It's probably more accurately a comic book movie. A comic book that happens to be all about video games

It is a romantic story with jokes. Comic-book based or not, it certainly has plenty in common with the romcom genre. I don't see how it draws all its ideas from games since games aren't generally built around romances that are anything like what takes place in the film.

What's wrong with the 1up? How is that shoehorned in? The guy died, so he used a 1up for an extra life.

If, like me, you don't see this film as taking place in a "video game world" then all the video game references were shoehorned in. If this was a video game world, then is Scott playing in it? Are we playing it? Are we just watching a game unfold? You are starting to get to some of my problem with the plot - the world is never fully realized - it is sort of a real world scenario AND a game world scenario all at the same time and it just doesn't work well. The 1UP isn't something he gets by hitting a mushroom or reaching a certain score, it is something he gets by deciding he's going to fight for what he wants. That's not how you get a one-up in any game I know.

And yes, you ARE a harsh person. The whole paragraph saying you aren't actually shows that you are. You hated him from the get go? Because he's not a perfect, flawless protaganist with loads of self esteem and charm? Frankly, the whole storyline wouldn't have worked if he was.

Frankly I think that you calling me harsh is itself harsh. Let's leave personal insults out of this. I didn't say I can't root for someone with no self esteem or who is flawed, I said I can't root for someone with ZERO redeeming qualities. Pilgrim has none, or at least none that Cera could convey.

Big Hollywood productions are usually based on a "sure thing" which a movie as odd as Scott Pilgrim certainly wasn't.

I didn't say it was a BIG Hollywood production or that it was a "sure thing," I said it is a typical Hollywood film that targets a set demographic. Twilight is an example, as are many horror films or any number of those silly parody films. They aren't made for everyone, but they are made with the hope that they'll make money with a certain demographic that eats that shit up. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

It doesn't follow any recognizable formula at all.

I disagree here. It is hard not to watch the film and know almost everything that's about to happen next.

And no, there aren't any big actors. I'm sorry but unless we're talking Brad Pitts, Angelina Jolies, Ben Afflecks, Morgan Freeman, Christian Bales, etc. than we're not talking big name actors. Scott Pilgrim's actors are are B level actors, which is typical with Edgar Wright movies.

Despite production costs, it's got indie written all over it as most Hollywood movies aren't this original and quirky. The average comic book blockbuster is more much formulaic than Scott Pilgrim was and makes for an easier sell to a Hollywood exec. I could say the same about your average romcom

I agree that it isn't typical Hollywood fare, but that doesn't mean it is indie or original. Cera reportedly made $4 million, and the cast as a whole made upwards of $25-$30 million. That's not an indie movie.

And again, your criticisms of the CGI, effects, etc. don't make sense. Video games are primarily a visual based medium. Moreso than movies. Any game set in a video game world rather than a realistic setting is going to have lots of that stuff. Also, as I often point out on this forum, most games exist in a bizzaro world that is completely unlike reality in any way. The so called "pointless" CGI and effects, as well as the so-called "shoehorned" in things like the 1up and pee meter all serve to reinforce that. I just don't see how any gamer doesn't get that. They should get it moreso than the nongamers watching

If it were more convincingly a video game world, maybe these things could work. But the narrative, settings, and characters are not largely like those you would find in a video game, so it doesn't.

And Scott Pilgrim is the ONLY movie about games I have seen done well, because it acknowledges how ludicrous many of them are and plays with that idea. It's a very smart and self aware movie, which like a lot of smart things in our culture today gets quickly labelled, "hipster" and frowned upon

I can appreciate plenty of things that get labeled "hipster", but this movie wrongly wears that tag. It isn't smart - one glance at the writing alone should prove that. It isn't quirky or original, it is manufactured nerdcore-bait that certain audiences will eat up as they are expected to. I am sure Universal is just upset that that audience wasn't as big as they estimated.

And I certainly respect your film knowledge, but it doesn't mean you're always right. I see people everyday who are supposedly experts in their field and still don't get a lot of things

Look, I can see how people have a different view of this film than I do, and I certainly don't mean to say you can't enjoy it on its own merits (regardless of whether I see them or not). But I can't abide some statements about the originality, sincerity, etc. of the film without saying something. The film tries oh so painfully hard to be something that it is not, and that for me is unforgivable.

[Bootaaay]

For what it's worth, Scott Pilgrim didn't sit well with me either and I agree with a lot of dsheinem's points. Cera's interpretation was just plain unlikable and after a while I just switched off and enjoyed the visuals. It's a fun film, but I hate seeing it put on a pedestal so.

In other news, I watched Wild Grass by Alain Resnais. At 88 year's old he's still a completely perplexing bastard and this film is the perfect example of that (or it would be if it wasn't for Marienbad). I'll do a proper write up soon.