Wednesday, 8 September 2010

Scott Pilgrim vs The Expendables. My Crazy Tuesday Double Bill.......

Tuesday is the best day to go to the cinema in Belfast.  £2.50 a ticket, good crowds and plenty of movies to choose from.  Even if you see a bad one, you don't feel ripped off (though Salt did test that theory to the limits).  So double bills have become something of a commonplace for me.  A few weeks ago it was Inception and The A Team.  We all know my ridiculous level of manlust for the first of those movies but The A Team was damn enjoyable as well.

So yesterday it was The Expendables, followed by Scott Pilgrim vs The World.

First up, The Expendables.  I've been looking forward to this all summer.  As a child of the 80's and early 90's, the idea of an ensemble piece with Sly, Bruce and Arnold was an impossible dream.  But here they are, all up on screen, at the same time.  Unfortunately, this movie was not made 15 years ago and therefore it was a small scene.

The plot revolves around a group of Mercenaries, who are hired to overthrow an dictator on a small tropical island.  And that's it.  But that's the whole point of a movie like this.  There is no need for a complicated plot, or deep character development.  We're here to see these guys blow shit up.  And therein lies the problem of The Expendables.  If this movie was made 15 years ago, when these guys were all big box office draws, it would have been epic and the budget would have been off the scale.  This movie unfortunately seems small budget, with all the action taking place on a small island or mainland America.  Even the opening on a ship relies on thermal imagery, and ends up looking like a cut scene from a video game.  There is no globe trotting plot, no glamourous locations.

The dialogue at times is cringe-worthy and it actually doesn't make sense.  One exchange was 'Who sent you?' Answer 'So does your mom?'.  What???  It doesn't even follow the rules of a simple conversation.  Again this wouldn't be so much of a problem if it had the humour of something like Commando, but the humour falls flat most of the time.  The story of how Randy Couture's character ended up with cauliflower ears was terrible.  Sly is much better than this.  This is the man who wrote Rocky, Rambo and their various sequels.  He knows how to write great dialogue but here the script really struggles.

I also think it's a mistake for a film like this to hire Eric Roberts and Mickey Rourke.  These guys are great actors, and they add weight and believability to their characters.  Unfortunately, this really shows how limited some of these other guys are.  Anytime (Stone Cold) Steve Austin was on screen, trying to exert menace, I couldn't help but laugh.  Jet Li's broken English never helps, and he kept telling a story about needing money for his family, and it ultimately went nowhere.  Randy Couture was so bad he couldn't even pull off a joke.  And Sly is looking old.  He's creepily trying to look young with his eyeliner and drawn on 'stylized' goatee.  Why?  We know he's older than he used to be, but it's his experience that makes him vital.  He should be the Clint Eastwood of a film like this, instead of Roger Moore in A View to a Kill.

But enough bitching.  When this movie does get going in places, it's awesome.  The scene at the docks where Sly and The Stath (also good doing his best Stath impression) are escaping in the plane, only to turn around and 'send a message'.  Great stuff.  And when the team decide to go back to the island, the last 30 minutes are pure, visceral boy's own action.  This is where limited 'actors' such as Stone Cold and Couture prove useful and fun to watch.  But to me, there's not enough of this.  The film really takes too long to get going when it should start and finish with a bang.

As I alluded to earlier, this movie gives the impression that its budget was small.  In addition to this, I'm guessing there must have been some sort of clause that this movie was 15/pg13 rated.  There's definitely a better, grittier and bloodier version of this film waiting to be released.  Keep an eye out for a 'Director's Cut' on DVD and Blu Ray.

So overall, it was pretty much what I expected, though I can't shake the feeling that it was a missed opportunity.  However, I say, bring on The Expendables 2 with JCVD, Wesley Snipes, Jackie Chan and Donnie Yen.  So, onto Scott Pilgrim.........

If The Expendables is a throwback to Ye Ol' action movies of yore, I feel that Scott Pilgrim is trying to establish itself as the action movie for the future.  It is however, an abject failure.  I said afterwards that 'never before has a film been so loud and energetic, yet so ridiculously dull.'

I'll just admit it now.  I'm not a huge fan of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz.  Spaced, for me, was too busy patting itself on the back for cramming in as many cultural and geeky references as possible, that it was devoid of original ideas or humour.  Shaun of the Dead was okay, but hardly great.  The fact that it is even mentioned in the same breath as British classics such as Trainspotting, The Italian Job or Lock, Stock is laughable.  Hot Fuzz I definitely enjoyed the most of the three, but after watching it once, I have no desire to revisit it again anytime soon.

Scott Pilgrim is a continuation of Spaced.  It's so concerned with being as loud as possible, as full of geek references as possible, of being cool, that they forgot to make an interesting movie.

The problem starts with the structure of the movie.  Scott has to defeat 7 evil exes.  So if he's only on number 2, do you think he'll win?  Of course he will, it's all so predictable that every time he faces off against an opponent who is so much stronger and better than he is, that he will emerge victorious. 

The film also starts off with this cool, interesting editing style of speeding up and slowing down the action.  It throws up subtitles on the screen showing off the characters like they were items in an IKEA catalogue.  It shows pee meters being drained when Scott goes to the toilet.  That's pretty cool and original.  But when they continue this style for a full two hours, it grows tiresome very quickly.  The editing style is at home in a 2 minute trailer, but for two hours you'd swear Edgar Wright had gone to the Michael Bay school of editing.

Then there's the characters.  Do you really care about any of them?  Scott himself, played by Michael Cera, is a selfish, unlikable and stupid person.  He is defined as a loser, yet when he is confronted by these super evil exes, he suddenly becomes the most cunning, hardest and most determined person in the world.  Character development?  Who needs it?  Let's just have our characters able to do anything to suit a scene.  Ridiculous!  Then we have Ramona, the so called 'woman of his dreams'.  She's flightly, impulsive and not so nice.  She even tells Scott that she's like this, but he just has to accept it.  Please, can she be my girlfriend?  All of the evil exes were cliched ideas in one way or another.

Another thing.  If your movie is going to employ mind bending physics, or slow motion fights, then you, as the director or writer, have to justify it.  There's The Matrix, when bullet time is justified by Morpheus saying that in that world you are not able to break the rules, but you can bend them.  In Inception, all the action takes place in the dream world, and therefore gravity is manipulated.  In Scott Pilgrim it just is.  Some scenes take place in a representation of reality, others in a hyper unrealistic computer game world.  Is it a dream?  Do they have superpowers?  Why bother explaing it to the audience in any coherent way?  Just accept it.

But they don't just stop at computer game references.  There's a three minute scene which starts with the Seinfeld music and the riffs on that show complete with audience laughter and everything.  I've never walked out of a movie (and proud to say I still haven't), but that was stretched to breaking point at that moment.  Again, let's try to prove how cool we are by throwing in another couple of totally unrelated pop culture references.

So after two of the longest hours of my life, Scott and Ramona ended up together.  What a shock!  I didn't see that coming at all.  Sorry I guess I should have used SPOILER ALERT, but let's be honest, this movie was never going to end in any other way.

Crazy Tuesday double bill will of course continue.  I just hope my choices next time are a little better.  I guess I still haven't seen Toy Story 3 yet, so that's a definite.  Anyone with any ideas please comment below.

Until next time.......

10 comments:

  1. Shame, I've heard a lot of good things about Scott Pilgrim. Typically movies based on games don't work, but 'gamer' movies are a different matter. Here's hoping Tron 2 doesn't turn out to be garbage.

    £2.50?! It must be £7 per ticket up here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tron 2 is looking good, so hopes are high. Scott Pilgrim just did not work on any level for me and I'm the first to admit I'm a movie, xbox 360 and comic book geek!

    £2.50/£3 depending on what cinema you go to but only on a Tuesday. Any other day it's hitting £6 :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. You lost all credibility when you denied the awesomeness of Shaun Of The Dead, Hot Fuzz and especially Spaced i'm afraid.

    You also seem to heave a bee in your bonnet about predictability in your reviews recently, I'd say you could probably count on one hand the amount of films released in the last 20 years or more where you couldn't predict the ending. Some of the greatest movies ever are pretty predictable, Marty McFly was always gonna get back to 1985, Indiana Jones was always gonna escape with the Lost Ark, the Rebels were always gonna defeat the Empire, Michael was always going to become the Godfather then eventually screw it up, the idea was always going to be planted succesfully in Inception ;)etc etc, the fun is in the journey, not the destination otherwise why bother watching the whole film instead of just reading what happens at the end :)

    Oh and the Jet Li thing where he needed money for his family was supposed to be a funny excuse he had for wanting more money, he admits towards the end that he doesn't have a family around the time of the fight with Dolph.

    Also saying they should leave good actors out of films so that the bad ones don't look worse seems a bit arse about face, surely the folly is in casting 'actors' like Stone Cold (who I thought was reletively decent) and Randy Couture (Keanu levels of wood).

    Any film these days is 100% better for the presence of Mickey Rourke which sort of brings me nicely on to an actor I'd love to see in the sequel - Gary Busey :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Finally I get you to comment lol As I've said already Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead are both good movies. They just don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as the other movies I mentioned. Spaced is only good for one episode with the forgetful Northern Irish dance fanatic, the rest of it was basically a parody of pop culture and was not very funny.

    Your argument is null and void regarding predictability when you said Indiana Jones was always going to get the ark. Was it not confiscated by the government? Did the Holy Grail not go down in the rubble in Indy 3? Inception, it was not always certain the idea would be planted successfully and also it was looking more and more likely that Cobb would get trapped forever. Plus, you're not even sure it did plant successfully. It could all be a dream at any point.

    Scott Pilgrim doesn't work because they try to get you to like Scott because he's a bit of a loser. An underdog. Yet any time he is faced with a challenge he is able to overcome it with relative ease. There was zero tension because he doesn't lose at any time. It was all so loud and energetic, but I just couldn't wait for it to end.

    But in the end, each to his own. It's just my opinion, not a statement of fact.

    PS You definitely lose credibility when you say Austin was relatively decent. When he kicked over the apple cart to make way for his boss's car I burst out laughing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lies! Spaced was brilliant on every conceivable level, portraying geeks as they actually are today, rather than reusing the outdated sweaty deformed buck-teethed troll thick glasses-wearing virgin stereotype. Simon Pegg screaming at a child for trying to buy a Jar Jar Binks toy has been immortalized in my mind forever.

    ReplyDelete
  6. First off, Lock, Stock is not fit to be nmentioned in the same breath as Shaun Of The Dead, Trainspotting or The Italian Job, in fact I would argue that Snatch is better than Lock, Stock....

    Not sure what your problem with pop-culture refrences is but to say that's all Spaced was is quite simply wrong and suggests that you have formed your opinion on it from watching a few clips on Youtube tbh

    My argument about predictability is not null and void at all. Indy was always going to survive to the end and find what he was looking for is the point I am making.

    In reality its a film about a treasure hunt where you know the bad guys will lose and the good guys will win. The reason the film is so highly regarded is that the journey was so well put together with superb characters working through impossible situations with great action scenes and dialogue so being able to predict the ending does not matter one bit.

    Fair enough if Scott Pilgrim does not fulfil these criteria but I would hardly say that him ending up with the girl being predictable is a stick to beat it with.

    At no time in Inception did I think they weren't going to plant the idea succesfully, true the ending is open to interpretation but if you plump for the 'It's All A Dream' explanation then it's no more original than Dallas while if you take the ending as him being succesful then it's no more original than 3 million other thrillers/action movies.

    While it was no doubt a fantastic film, your really need to dial back on the outlook that Inception is much more than just that.

    The best film of the last 20 years? Really? A time period which has seen films such as Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, Heat, Terminator 2, The Dark Knight, Lord Of The Rings, Goodfellas, Fight Club, The Usual Suspects, Seven, LA Confidential, American History X, City Of God, Pixar's output and Harold & Kumar Go To Whitecastle....

    I have yet to see Scott Pilgrim yet so I'll say no more on it for now but I'm sure I'll revisit this once I do get to see it :)

    P.S. I said Austin was relatively decent as in he was decent relative to other wrestlers turned movie stars such as John 'personality vacuum' Cena and Hulk Hogan, we'll forget about The Rock for now lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. But you see, now your just contradicting yourself. You say that in the last 20 years you could count on one hand the films you didn't know how they were going to end. Then you mention some of the best films from that timeframe. Did you know how Pulp Fiction was going to end? Shawshank? Usual Suspects? Fight Club? Seven? The Dark Knight? So we're already finished with one hand, let me give you more examples. Let the Right One In, Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Prestige, Night Watch, Collateral, Wall-E, Up. I could go on...

    My point is that not every good film has to have a twist ending, but you shouldn't be able to guess the outcome in the first ten minutes. You can say you knew that they'd plant the idea in Inception. But for the first 30-45 minutes, I still wasn't 100% sure what the film was about.

    And also, I love pop culture references when they are done well. But ramming you over the head with them repeatedly, just strikes me as the writers/directors saying, 'look how cool we are'. I already gave the Seinfeld example in my review, and there was no point to it whatsoever. It was just there for being there's sake.

    Again I bring you back to my idea that it's just my opinion, not a statement of fact. I can truly say that no film has resonated with me as much in the last 20 years more than Inception. In my mind, everything about it was as close to perfect as a movie can get.

    Scott Pilgrim was not even at its base level entertaining. But you'll probably enjoy it, given that you're so easily pleased with movies these days that you give Iron Man 2 a 5/5, when it was clearly no more than a 3/5 movie, and would have been less had it not been for the god like status of Robert Downey Jr and Mickey Rourke. I think we must have switched places from the days where every film I saw at the cinema was 'the best film ever!(tm)' lol

    ReplyDelete
  8. lol I didn't see Iron Man 2 in the cinema but it thoroughly entertained me and was exactly what I was looking for in an Iron Man film, it's not a 5/5 in the way The Godfather would be but relative to what my expectations from a comic book movie are.

    Maybe I was exaggerating a little when I said every film was predictable but the ones I have listed are all exceptional examples of movie making, not movies I would expect Scott Pilgrim to share a berth with, but then again, how many of them rely on a twist ending, in itself a fairly unoriginal idea.

    Also if you look hard enough at each of them there are elements that are predictable or unoriginal. You knew the killer would be caught in Seven, you knew that Bruce Willis would help the kid in The Sixth Sense, that Batman would save the day, that the old guy would get to where he wanted to go and become friends with the boy who annoyed him so much at the start in Up, that there would be a prison rape scene in Shawshank, that Jamie Foxx would catch up with Tom Cruise etc the skill again is in weaving them into an interesting story that is entertaining throughout even when it might descend into cliche now and again.

    I'm not denying your right to an opinion but can't help but feel the Inception thing is a return to your roots as the originator of "every film I saw at the cinema was 'the best film ever!(tm)'

    With regards to Inception, not understanding what the hell is going on for the first 40 minutes is not the same as not being able to predict how it would end and further reinforces my view that it's the journey that counts. As soon as they talk about planting an idea in someones mind I knew they would do this but the brilliance of the movie was showing how this would be done in an exciting and thoroughly entertaining way while also maintaining the tension in scenes where you knew the good guy would come through but still leaving that nagging doubt in the back of your mind that he might not.

    Finally, your insistance that Spaced repeatedly hits you over the head with pop culture refrences further cements my belief that you have never watched a full episode, let alone the whole series :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have watched all of Spaced, since I downloaded it off iTunes with a voucher Victoria gave me for my birthday one year. I'll give Nick Frost his kudos, as he is the best character in it. But it just didn't resonate with me.

    I don't think you can say I'm going back to every film being the best film ever, if out of the last 5 or 6 films I have seen at the cinema, that Inception is the only one I think is truly exceptional, and certainly the only one that demanded repeated viewing.

    What we were taught in film school was that the audience always wants the ending they expect, but you have to twist it in a way they have never seen before. That's why Seven is awesome in that the killer purposefully lets himself get caught because it's all part of his plan. Or that once Bruce Willis had helped the kid in Sixth Sense that there was a further twist as to why he was able to help him. It wasn't just that he was a skilled psychiatrist but also that he was the only ghost who was nice to him.

    The reason I have thrown my opinion out there for Scott Pilgrim, is that nearly every review I have read is that it is like the second coming. I was genuinely looking forward to it and wanted to enjoy it, but for whatever reason critics seem to think that flashy special effects, quick cutting and unlikable characters equals a great movie.

    I'm going to give Spaced another chance and watch it again. Maybe I have been overly harsh on it, but it just never really made me laugh out loud at any point.

    The reason I wasn't fond of Iron Man 2 is because it was all so bland. They ruined the best character in Whiplash by making him totally badass and being a genuine threat to Iron Man, but then they just stuck him behind a desk for the rest of the movie. The final showdown was also not very good because they were all generic robots he was fighting. Plus Rhodie turns on him then back to him, and it all seems to be for no reason. As I say entertaining enough, but I forgot about it the second I walked out of the cinema whereas with Iron Man 1 I immediately wanted to talk about it. Iron Man 2 is not a 5/5 film. 3/5 seems about right.

    ReplyDelete