Alas, my friends, I am back. Here to terrorize fans of this summer’s other zeitgeist film, Scott Pigrim Vs. The World. Now, whoa, right? I know, Scott Pilgrim was a pretty decent summer movie. It boasted impressive visuals, some hit-or-miss visual comedy and Anna Kendrick. But I argue that it can stay only that: a pretty good summer film. An “if you want to be entertained” sort of thing. But that’s faint praise. Like “valedictorian” of summer school. Scott Pilgrim is not a great film. And here’s why:
1. Micheal Cera: you’re not Bill Murray. Know why? Because 1. Bill Murray is funny; and 2. Bill Murray also has dramatic chops he shows in a wide variety of roles. Mikey, you gotta grow up sometime, kid. It’s inevitable. What will happen when awkward young man falling in love schtik passes you by? What will you do then? Because I have seen nothing from you but the same role over and over and over again. I liked it better when it was called “Arrested Development.” It was short and you weren’t the main character.
2. “But the visual are cool. It’s so original.” Yeah, originally adapted from some comics. The visuals are cool, for like the first 30 min. Then the movie rambles on like a runaway train exhausting all of these visual jokes and gimmicks long into the final 30 min that don’t need to be there. Could we have like 3 Evil Exes, please? I know, but the movie was so close to the book. Blind obedience to a subpar source is not impressive. It’s merely the misled election of style over substance, of telling over story.
3. My next griping comes at the relationship of the diegesis to the storytelling. Mainly, where the film failed most for me was that there never was anything truly at stake. You can’t ask me to care about the love life struggles of this 20-something right after he just killed a bunch of people to gain her favour. Ok, so we’re not playing in the same world as most humans inhabit. No, in Scott Pilgrim’s universe, he murders people, collects their pocket change, and no one bats an eye. Some racket, huh? That’s ok to play by those video game rules, but then don’t ask me to care about people and issues in that world. You’re breaking too many rules.
4. That’s what it is too really. All the cutsey-clever visual humour enters the diegesis in order to have an effect on the narrative, but never sees it along or improves it. They are visual gags, that is all. I’m upset because Scott’s extra life and whatnot called way too much attention to itself and violated it’s own rules. Any story telling gimmicks should not come into contact with the narrative, rather they are meant to inform the viewers.
Good movie. Fun movie. Not great film. Too many errors, mistakes. Too much. Even all the original and innovative visual gags became exhausted by the time we fought the 11th boyfriend. Edgar Wright would have been doing us all a big favour with an editor and a large step back.
I was just watching "Juno" the other day and couldn't help by sigh at the idea that Cera's role in that film is no longer as funny or fresh as it was to me the first time I saw it. Yes, that role was too close to his character in "Arrested Development" (to this day, one of the most underrated sitcoms of all time, but I thought it fit perfectly for "Juno" (which was, I believe, a very enjoyable film).
ReplyDeleteHowever - here it comes Michael Cera - his performances in everything since "Arrested Development" and "Juno" have been fairly identical. When seeing the previews for "Scott Pilgrim", I immediately thought back to 2008's "Nick & Nora's Infinite Playlist". By forcing me to remember the same small list of films over and over again, Cera sets himself up for a short-lived career.