Review: Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" (2010)

Well in the last month there were 3 films I wanted to see. One being 'Expendables', two being 'Scott Pilgrim', and three being 'The Other Guys'. I have been busy lately, or at least my time has been occupied enough to see these lesser films. I did make time for 'Scott Pilgrim' a couple weeks ago...

This film I think reveals the trend of Michael Cera dieing. Michael Cera made a film called 'Year One' which cost him a portion of his fan base. The same poison happened to 'Napoleon' himself when Jon Heder went out and flopped on pretty much everything after his debut. Cera, I think can resurrect his career if he puts himself into more original projects which helped launch him in the first place. I think 'Scott Pilgrim' was a step in the right direction, but it doesn't look like people are interested anymore.

Some people say this may still have a chance at a DVD phenomenon, but really, how often does this happen? Not often enough to be confident. For the time being it looks like the film is extremely limited on its audience, targeting a specific nerd community which does include myself. That community is or has been influenced by early gaming, and sarcastic modern humor.

The film for me never took off like I wanted it to. It was like going to the world's biggest bird exhibit only to watch it swim. It did amazing things, but it never really filled the void you wanted it to.

I like comparing and illustrating my feelings, and when it comes to the style and story telling of the film it was like walking into Baskin Robins Ice Cream to pick your favorite one, only to have your friend walk out holding one for you already. The one picked is good, but its less for 2 reasons, one, you didn't pick it, and two, you only like cookies and cream so much.

The film was overall sufficient and satisfying, but many at many points the film failed to make it there. The movie just seemed to try to be something really hard, and you could see it, and because you could see it, it became less. For sure this is going to be one people will buy on DVD special edition or can the whole idea of owning a copy of the movie all together.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. The World"

7 / 10

Review: Christopher Nolan's "Inception" (2010)

Before seeing 'Inception', the film was my 2nd most anticipated film of the year, behind 'True Grit' and in front of 'Iron Man 2'. I was so pumped up about the film prior to seeing it, the trailer had promised me great things, it is starring some of my favorite actors, and directed by one of my most prized directors.

The film is about a man trying to return to normality after destroying his life with the technology capable of creating dream worlds when he and his wife enter. When they went in, only he came out, and now separated from his children, he believes doing one last job for an individual promising him an ability to return to his children, they engage in the most epic journey yet.

The best, absolutely by far the best thing coming from this film is the idea promoted in the film about altering time and space in a dream. The film explains that in each dream world time is extended, for example you may be alive in your dream and experience 50 years while only actually spending 1 or less years asleep. From a storytelling perspective it is capable of justifying all sorts of different angles and directions. Time is a very sensitive fact in storytelling, everything moves along a single timeline, whether you go back and forth to tell a story, it still rides on one line. In this movie there are infinite possibilities in how many lines can exist. I like that.

Now the film, directed by Christopher Nolan, starring Mr. DiCaprio, the film looks... excellent. Everything is so clear and vivid, its just astounding. The ideas presented visually is remarkable. The story as a unit is solid. The acting is surprisingly, merely, sufficient. To have a cast like this come together for a film, I would have expected a great mind in Christopher Nolan to somehow include scenes that can pull out the talent in each individual, but it didn't happen. Everyone was just good at what they were asked to do.

Movies like this, like 'The Sixth Sense', are much more difficult to watch and be just as or close to as entertained as the first time watching them. 'Inception' indeed suffers from the one time knockout.

About 2 weeks or so after seeing it the first time, I saw it again. I was bored, not because what was shown wasn't dazzling, but it just showed me how much the film relies on its mysteries to carry the film. I for the first time didn't pull anything out of it the second time, I actually payed attention completely the first time. Normally there is a cracker or snippet left to pick up on an outing or two after, but nope. I was completely satisfied after the one viewing.

Movies I would or could compare this to would be 'The Matrix', and a 'Bourne' film. Action packed, wild ride through a mysterious story constantly asking questions while only leaving maybe one open in the end. Just not enough for another outing for awhile.

I recommend this film very much for those who have not seen the film, you will indeed be blown away. But, stay away from seeing it again for awhile to help preserve it.

'Inception'

8 / 10

Review: Martin Scorsese's "Raging Bull" (1980)

I watched this film right after watching 'Stalker'. So, back to back slow movies, with legendary directors. The difference in the two films for me juts boils down to interest and style preferences. I hold Scorsese as the reigning champion, and in a huge way, a fading champion. With boxing on topic, I think of Scorsese as an aging boxing champion with old timers on his side, and who has arguably the best career ever. On the other side, you see the risen stars in the Coens and Nolan as a couple. They are taking their game further and further with every project, moving at a pace that would put Scorsese 9 feet under if they ever went head to head.

In Scorsese's outing of 'Raging Bull', I think I agree with a critic named Joseph McBride, who writes for Variety, in that he thinks the film is overrated. Even further he makes an observation about the characters Scorsese gives us, in being they are never people we would want to know, or have exist around us. They are all darker twisted characters, and maybe that is a huge reason for the fascination in Scorsese's films.

Most of the time, I like Scorsese's work, and find his characters very interesting. This time I don't. I am bored out of my mind. Watching a group of people, who I never cared about, be... boring. When I watched the film I failed to notice the film was written based on a true story. The true story status is really the only solid legs the film has in my interest department. Performances are good, cinematography may be fine if it fits your style of film making, but its not mine.

There are several time I wish I could just fast forward through the film to get to the "good parts", like I'm watching 'Commando' or something. Not that 'Commando' gets a single star out of 10, but there are some fireworks in the action scenes, even if they are just sparklers... 'Raging Bull' was the equivalent to spending $100 on a single firework, and when lit, it just melts, ruining everything. It looked cool before lit, it cost a lot, and was even highly recommended... but unfortunately, duds will always exist... even on the highest quality.

The action in 'Raging Bull' isn't trying to appeal to the normal action fans, instead takes a more poetic style to it. Portraying its action with flashing lights and frontal positioned shots, with more over drama is just screaming Broadway play. I respect the writing from a true story perspective, but respect is where it stops. I cannot enjoy myself watching this film. When I look at the glory this films receives on all the film critic lists, it really sickens me, and it makes me feel like I did with the Bush vs. Kerry Presidential ballots, it felt like a recount was needed then, like I feel like one is needed now. There just is no way my mind can wrap itself around the idea that this film is in a top 50 films ever discussion unless dead people are voting.

So, my emphasis in the end is on it's boring story. The film is shot well, not spectacularly, but well. The adaptation by assumption seems well enough, acting is well... but I just don't see anything great in the film, instead mediocre or well at best.

'Raging Bull'

6.5 / 10