TheDoctorfromOz Reviews

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

In the land of pixels and make believe...

[10/10 · 11 April 2011]

One day, I saw a headline about the trailer to 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' being released. When I watched it, I was entranced by it. It was fast, flashy, and funny and when I finally saw the movie, those three words are exactly the way I'd describe the final product.

The film starts with about 15 minutes of quick cuts and snappy dialogue and if it makes you nauseous, shut the film off. But really, that's two of the many things I must praise the film for. Its editing sets the film at a break neck speed and stays that way throughout the film. There's no down time and the director, Edgar Wright, packs every second of it with references so small yet so effective that one must be hyper aware if they want to catch them all. The best part about all of these references is that they all fall into the script flawlessly. They never strain it. The other thing that could turn you away is that most of the characters are very cynical but if you're like me (a somewhat cruel teenager,) you'll find it very funny.

Another thing this movie does brilliantly is how it juggles genres. It has action, comedy, romance, and even a scene that has a musical number and the cast pulls it off perfectly. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is beautiful and tough as the mysterious Ramona Flowers and the evil exes are all delightfully despicable. People have been heaping praise on Ellen Wong with her portrayal of Knives Chau, the insane stalker ex-girlfriend of Scott Pilgrim. For a new comer, she's very good, but I was annoyed by her, maybe because I know all too many people like that in real life. However, that's the idea with the character and she does it very well. Personally, I think the best actress in the film is Alison Pill as the drummer Kim Pine. Really the biggest problem with the cast is Michael Cera. Yes, he's playing only a slightly more animated version of the character he's played in every other movie he's done. While this isn't a huge gripe as it does kind of fit the role, he just doesn't offer much new and it leaves us annoyed.

Okay, I got off topic back there. As I was saying, the movie juggles genres perfectly. If you're a fan of romantic comedies, this film has it. If you like action films, this movie's got it. Hell, if you're a fan of anime, musicals, or flashy effects, this film has it! It's Edgar Wright at his best, as before he's handled three genres at the most. Now he's handling every genre but horror, although if you like his style, there's his past film 'Shaun of the Dead' that covers that. It's just one of those films that anyone can enjoy.

I also suggest the comic series. They expand on the story that the film has. Really, you watch the movie to get the basic idea of the concept of Scott Pilgrim and you read the series to learn more about it. I'm saying you shouldn't watch the film. Quite the opposite, really. One should read the books for the story and watch the movie for the artistry that went into the film making.

In the end, 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' is a fantastic movie. It has beautiful visuals, a lightning fast pace that you either latch on to and follow for the whole thing or just can't catch up with, and a lot of energy from all who are involved.

And as a side note, for anyone complaining about the ending, GUYS, it's a fairy tale. How else would it end?

Fright Night (1985)

Drawing parallels...

[9/10 · 1 February 2011]

In an age of Twilight, it's very interesting to see a film with vampires where they're portrayed as scary rather than your average soap opera character. In the Bela Lugosi Dracula, Dracula was portrayed with an almost Bond like stature. However, whether it was Lugosi or just the film making of the times, Dracula lacked just the the charisma to sell it. Now that's just my opinion, but in stating that, it makes my point clearer when I say the Sarandon's performance of the vampire Jerry Dandrige has that charisma so that you buy it when he seduces someone.

I compare Dandrige and Dracula because that's what Fright Night is. It's a contemporary (well, in the eighties it was) take on the classic vampire. It doesn't try to create new rules or reboot classic Universal vampire lore. It simply elaborates on it. We never saw what would have happened in Dracula when Dr. Van Helsing holds up the cross. We just saw Lugosi's over the top reaction to its presence. In Fright Night, it's the equivalent of jabbing someone with a red hot brand.

Speaking of Van Helsing, Roddy McDowall turns in a very fun turn as Fright Night's interpretation of the character, Peter Vincent. He's a washed up film star who's been reduced to hosting a horror movie show that shows. He has the know how and yet is crippled by his cowardice and greed. In the role of the brave boy, willing to risk life and limb to protect his neighborhood and girlfriend, is young Charley Brewster, played by William Ragsdale. He's the main character, after all, and plays the role with naivety and yet an undying persistence to stop this creature that threatens him and his community. In an all to common parallel is Charley's girlfriend Amy (Amanda Bearse) and his best friend, Evil Ed (Stephen Geoffreys.) They don't believe Charley, but are concerned for him and enlist Vincent's help (with Amy's college fund.) The design of the vampire is the least faithful thing to the classic idea of the vampire. Well, the Universal vampire, anyways. When the vampires become hungry, they turn into more ravenous takes on Nosferatu (which is technically Dracula, the film studio just couldn't afford the rights to the name.) Anyway, the vampires also can transform (as did Dracula.) These effects are pretty good. One of the best involves just a quick effect with a wolves' eyes. The way the scenery blends with the film is also very well done, if not slightly exaggerated.

As much as I've been praising this film, however, it's definitely not perfect. A lot of the acting is exaggerated. This problem is easily forgivable, although, because the overacting actually leads to some of the more memorable characters and moments in the film. Second, the screenplay is pretty weak at points and under mines itself when it's trying to be serious and scary and that's leading to my last complaint, which is, coincidentally, my complaint with Dracula, and that is that to me, this film just isn't scary. I mean sure, it's creepy, but if you're like me (a 14 year old boy), there's a strong possibility that this film won't scare you. However, I don't really count this as a strike against it, as it's not as much a flaw with the movie as it is with modern movie goers such as myself.

The more I think about this movie, the more I realize how much this film is a contemporary re-telling of Dracula and it's a well made one, too. It's a refreshing break to see a vampire movie that doesn't try to be particularly special with it's portrayal of vampires and in not being special, it BECOMES special. And that's the beauty of Fright Night. And yet, it makes me sad, as it shows just how pathetic vampires have gotten that watching a movie where vampires do what they're supposed to do is such a rare and glorious occurrence. Oh well. In the end Fright Night is a fun, campy, and creepy vampire flick that would be ideal to watch on Halloween.