Tuesday
Aug172010
Review: Scott Pilgrim Movie
Tuesday, August 17, 2010 Filed in Discussions ;)
Scott Pilgrim is a movie. Scott Pilgrim is a book. Scott Pilgrim is Canadian. Scott Pilgrim is a douche. We love Scott Pilgrim. He may be with fault, but they are fults we can live with and though we may complain once and a while we’ll stand by him. This week we review Scott Pilgrim. Don’t believe me, then listen for yourself.
Runtime: 1 hour 12 minute 57 seconds
The Dollar Bin audio player requires javascript to work. Please enable javascript or use the download link below to listen to our show.
Find out more about Independent, Ted, Tee, adam, heather, movie, review, scott pilgrim, shawn
Independent, Ted, Tee, adam, heather, movie, review, scott pilgrim, shawn
Reader Comments (26)
Seriously, go back and read Volume 1 and explain to me how Scott Pilgrim is a womanizer. It had been a year since him and Envy broke up. Julie didn't want him to date Ramona because she knew he had a rebound in him. Then she is informed by Stills that Scott is over his down period because he now has a High School girlfriend. Where is the womanizing?
Also, for the love of god look at his relationship with Knives. "She may have hugged me once?" Where the hell is the womanizing in that?
Also, he wears the hat a couple times in Volume 1 and its never explained why. I think shoving that hat gag in our faces made it more annoying than funny.
Finally, in Volume 1 Ramona says, herself, multiple times, "Evil Ex-Boyfriends." O'Malley set the tone of "Boyfriends" in the very beginning and then tries to play it off later as, "oh, you only assumed they were all boys, well guess what sucker!" We assumed it cause the dialogue itself said so.
Ending of the series, "hey you know all those continuity errors in my 6 volumes series? Its cause Gideon was messing with Scott's brain the whole time." I call BS.
Copied and pasted from Dollar Bin Forum:
Scott Pilgrim was pretty good. I liked a lot of the stuff. I liked the changes. The person playing Knives was great and you really felt it when Scott was being a dick to her; not so much in the books. I recognized and like the actress playing Kim, but it looked like they really tried making her ugly for no apparent reason. Not that she was ugly...just saying it looked like that's what they were going for with the wig and make-up and whatnot. Envy was basically irrelevant, and that was disappointing. Anna Kendrick (I love her) was great as Scott's sister and Aubrey Plaza (better when not mopey) was a good choice for Julie for the attitude but it felt like she was missing something else. Michael Cera did a good job as Scott, but not a great job. I was getting REALLY bored with the movie until the fights with the exes began, and then I really started to enjoy the film. The good parts were really good, and the not so good parts really stuck out until another really good part came along which having combined all 6 books into one film meant (aside from the beginning going annoyingly slow) the bad parts lasted maybe a minute before another fight broke out or someone uttered a funny line. The music was decent too. I had high hopes for the film and it came up a bit short, but overall it's a decent film that can benefit from word of mouth in subsequent weeks if people can be dragged to it and forced to watch because you're not gonna get them in there by attempting to EXPLAIN the damn thing. Inexplicable should be the most commonly used word in Scott Pilgrim movie reviews. I can't say it's worth the $10 movie theaters charge these days, though. Not for me it isn't.
As to the womanizing question, I voted NO. A womanizer needs to have been with more women than Scott has been with, and he needs to be ambivalent or malicious about doing it. Scott spent the entire series (until the very end) not understanding how he affects others. He's self-centered. He's not a womanizer. Wallace Wells is a...MAN-anizer (leave me alone... I know words and stuff). Wallace jumps from guy to guy without a second thought. If Scott did that with all the girls he dated, then maybe. He dumped Knives because she was a glorified place-holder until someone more interesting showed up because she was safe and non-threatening...or so he thought. He had gotten hurt by Envy, so naturally he's going to want a rebound relationship where he has all the power. He tries to ignore or laugh off every advance by Knives as youthful infatuation which she will easily get over... he seems to ignore the possibility that he could be doing to her what Envy did to him. Because he's a self-centered moron not a womanizer.
Julie doesn't want Scott to date Ramona because she dislikes Scott and thinks Ramona's presence at her parties is a good thing and doesn't want Scott to scare her off with his stupidity. I don't think she's concerned about Ramona being Scott's rebound girl at all.
"Also, he wears the hat a couple times in Volume 1 and its never explained why. I think shoving that hat gag in our faces made it more annoying than funny."
I thought it was funny. It didn't stick out enough to me to be annoying. Maybe he wears the hat because it's frickin' cold in Canada. I just liked the cutaways and then when we cut back to Scott the hat was on because someone was talking about his long shaggy hair. I like the editing technique, I mean, and how it was used for the joke...not necessarily the joke itself. It just didn't annoy me though I can see how it could annoy someone else.
"Finally, in Volume 1 Ramona says, herself, multiple times, "Evil Ex-Boyfriends." O'Malley set the tone of "Boyfriends" in the very beginning and then tries to play it off later as, "oh, you only assumed they were all boys, well guess what sucker!" We assumed it cause the dialogue itself said so."
Well since I've never owned any of the books, I'll take your word for it. I think it would've been a good joke if he had stayed with Evil Ex-Boyfriends so when Roxy showed up there could be a few jokes about calling her an ex-boyfriend and her having to keep yelling "I'm a girl, dammit" or whatever. Mistakes happen...things change. It doesn't bug me, but I like that in the film they go out of their way to keep pointing out that Scott assumes they're all boys...and since the book is sort of from Scott's point of view, it could be argued that this is why Ramona says Ex-Boyfriends at first because it's what Scott hears when in fact she just said evil exes and Scott only begins to notice later. That said, I'm not trying to make excuses for anyone...might just be a mistake or a change. No big deal.
"Ending of the series, "hey you know all those continuity errors in my 6 volumes series? Its cause Gideon was messing with Scott's brain the whole time." I call BS."
there were continuity errors? I admit that I've never paid that much attention because it's already a sort of shallow story that's not to be taken seriously.
I kinda dislike the idea that Gideon created the league to control Ramona's life. I think it would've been funnier if that was just a weird fact of Ramona's love life and every new boyfriend had to defeat the previous ones and the most recent ex just ends up being the one in charge. And I like the film ending better. Mostly.
In the end, there can be only one.
I think I came off as not liking Scott Pilgrim. I think the books are fun and the movie was entertaining. Really I do.
I originally began writing this as a review of Scott Pilgrim but when I knew we were going to be doing a podcast review I figured my response would be better suited here.
Before I can discuss the movie let me tell you a little about my thoughts on the book. In the interest of fair disclosure I could only force myself to read the first two books. I hated the series, I hated the main character, I hated the cutsie pop culture references, I hated the quirkiness just for the sake of being quirky, and I hate Manga-influenced artwork in general so as you can tell this movie had a lot of strikes against it.
With that said, if you can find the wavelength of this movie you will love it. You will wrap your arms around it and embrace it for all its faults because it was made for you and it is speaking your language. No matter how much I ran my button up and down the dial though I could only manage to tune in enough to get that driving in the middle of nowhere AM kind of reception.
I must also now confess that when I read the book I labored under a major misconception. While reading the book I figured the outlandish fights were in Scott’s head. Sure he was fighting evil Ex’s in real life but instead of registering the fights as normal he was seeing the fights through his video game-influence slacker haze. And while I didn’t like a lot of the books I at least thought that this was an extremely interesting premise, even if it was badly executed. After seeing the movie I realized that oh no, I was wrong, these fights are actually taking place exactly shown and everyone lives in a giant game complete with coins, power ups, and bigger and more evil big bosses.
So if I misread how the book and movie should be experienced how should I view this movie? Since I knew from the book I would not be given a point of view character to help ease me into this world I decided to view this as a documentary focusing on just this point of Scott’s life.
This documentary is about a slacker 22 year old who mooches off of his friends, has no life ambition, was mentally stunted at age 15, and falls in love with a woman for no reason at all other than she’s cute (again playing off of the mentally stunted part). I’m sorry but if you’re going to have a movie about a self-absorbed asshat who runs drifts through life disposing of women whenever things get uncomfortable he had either better be one charming, cool asshat or his journey had better turn him into a man.
Unfortunately the prepubescent body and voice of Michael Cera does not make him charming or cool at all and his character is still almost the same exact slacker he was at the beginning of the movie. Perhaps I should have felt good that he has begun on his road to manhood by movie’s end but I just didn’t care.
OK, so the main character was that great how about the love interest? What can I say about Mary Elizabeth Winstead that hasn’t been said by any straight-edged male under the age of 40? All I can add is that I can honestly say that I never thought I’d see an emo goth chick in a movie who didn’t dress like an undertaker. She may be cute but she’s as depressing as hell. I could understand if Scott wanted to snag it, bag it, and then give it cab fare but I saw nothing in her to make me want to fight one Ex after a signle date much less 7 of them.
What did he enjoy? you must be asking yourself. I thought that Chris Even did an excellent job as Ex #2. The sly commentary they worked in about action movies and the falsity of Hollywood was brilliant and his performance was spot on. I also liked Brandon Routh as Ex #.....4 I believe he was. Mr. Routh just seems like a genuinely nice guy and even playing a guy like that the nicety shows through which really helped the character. Kieran Culkin as the gay roommate was solid gold. Now this is a character they should have made the movie about. Every line he delivered was cutting but funny at the same time. Jason Schwartzman as Gideon was slimy, sleezy, but oh so funny. He made me want to kick back and down a few with him right before I punched him in the throat.
This movie wasn’t all bad but something is wrong when the peripheral characters were more entertaining and engaging than either of the leads. As I mentioned earlier if you can get in tune with the world and the rules it sets up this movie will wow you and charm you. There was enough in it to keep me entertained but I just can’t recommend it. Ted can now disagree with me.
Hey guys, another great show!
As I stated in the forums, I really liked almost everything about this movie except for Michael Cera. You guys mentioned in your episode about the books that some of you didn't see why Ramona and Scott were together, and I've heard that criticism a lot. I think I didn't have a problem with it in the comics, because a lot of comic reading is filling in the gaps, and I just always assumed Scott and Ramona were just that charming or cute. I can imagine Scott as awesome as he needs to be for the books to work, and that's pretty mcuh what I did. Faced with Michael Cera in the movie though, this all falls apart, and that flaw in the books (if you can call it that, I didn't think it was one until the movie) is front and center.
As for the "womanizer" debate. I think that really hinges on whether we're talking about the books or the movie. I find a lot more support for that arguement in the movie, but I voted "yes" in the poll, though it was before hearing the context of the question in the podcast.
The three scenes I was most dissappointed weren't in the movie were Scott and Envy in the alleyway when he calls her "Nat" (at least that got a nod), the multiple Ramona's emerging to fight Gideon, and Ramona finding Scott in his Zelda dream.
I would just like to point out that the people have spoken...and Scott's a womanizer.
Thank you.
I would like to point out that I stand by the accusation that our listeners are stupid. Show me evidence. I want to see it. Its not in Volume 1. Where is it?
And really this was just a test to see how many Maybes we would get. Noncommittal bastards.
Depends on what your definition of womanizing is. For some people it's sleeping with women. If you are using a larger than normal number of women for your own needs with no consideration for their feelings then that in my opinion makes you a womanizer. Scott Pilgrim did exactly that therefore.....WOMANIZER.
And the opinions expressed by Adam are his alone and do not necessarily reflect that of the rest of the Dollar Bin crew who thanks all of our listeners for spending a little time with us and value your point of view.
"If you are using a larger than normal number of women for your own needs with no consideration for their feelings then that in my opinion makes you a womanizer. Scott Pilgrim did exactly that therefore.....WOMANIZER."
Where?
...and I am the DOLLAR BIN
And you are WRONG...
The Merriam-Webster definition of a womanizer "one who pursues casual sexual relationships with many women". Everyone who thinks Scott is a womanizer is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. And your "opinion" of the definition of a word means nothing.
Let's say for instance I called Ted "gay". By very definition I'm wrong. Ted is (theoretically) heterosexual. It doesn't make me right if I said MY definition of the word "gay" actually means "a jerk".
Is Scott a toolbag? Yes. Scott's not a womanizer. You're only proving your ignorance if you keep debating that he is.
*spikes the football and commences endzone celebration*
"The Merriam-Webster definition of a womanizer "one who pursues casual sexual relationships with many women". Everyone who thinks Scott is a womanizer is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. And your "opinion" of the definition of a word means nothing. "
Hold on a second, you mean like in Vol. 6 when he asks three different women to have casual sex with him in the space of about 10 pages? I actually would say Book-Scott is not a womanizer, but your Merriam-Webster definition, if we're going to go by that, kind of seals it against your agruement.
But Terence, the meaning of words change all the time. Faggot=Bundle of wood, Gay=Happy, Cool=A style of jazz music, Awful=Full or deserving of Awe. So Ted is definitely gay but is he "gay"?
Not only that but the meaning of the words can change depending on the emotional experience of the person speaking. Is looking at a beautiful woman too long as she passes by cheating? My wife would say so but Adam's probably wouldn't.
*knocked for 2 yard loss, kicks dirt in your face as I walk back to the huddle*
Okay. Scott's response in book 6 is obviously not womanizing. Its reaction to trauma.
Clearly, our former president put it best:
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair
Maybe change womaniser to man-whore and you'll have a more accurate description of Scott.
"Okay. Scott's response in book 6 is obviously not womanizing. Its reaction to trauma."
Doesn't matter why he did it....his treatment of them for speaks for itself.
Would you categorize Howard Wolowitz from "Big Bang Theory" as a womanizer?
It's not from lack of trying that Wolowitz isn't a womanizer. I don't think you can compare those two as women do seem to actually want to hook up with Scott. I don't really get why they do, but I still have to support the pro-womanizer argument.
Scott is NOT a womanizer. A womanizer takes advantage of woman knowingly and with intent to do so. Clearly he doesn't revel in the fact that he does what he does, nor does he set out to do so. It just happens that way. In no part to Scott's intent, but more that these characters are young and have nothing (or no one) better to do.
If he bragged about it to his friends after the fact it'd be one thing, but he's too caught up in himself to see anything otside his own immediate bubble.
The women who hook up with Scott do so of their own volition, be it naiveté, insecurity, revenge or sheer boredom.