Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Started by modage, March 25, 2010, 11:15:57 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pubrick

Quote from: pete on September 02, 2010, 07:57:52 PM
my favorite kissing scene of all time has a girl kiss first.

for the record, mine too.

between Naomi Watts and Laura Harring in mully d.
under the paving stones.

Pas

Quote from: P on September 01, 2010, 12:24:50 AM
cera simply looks FREAKISH in this film. he already lacks certain qualities that anyone his age should have, looking like a MAN for one thing.. and his exaggerated slender features in this just make the film a huge turn off as far as his character is concerned. he makes me CRINGE to look at sometimes, and his voice just makes his entire being into some kind of freakshow.

haha wtf P! There is always The Expendables, there's loads of real men in there. Check it out.

He's a 22 year old hipster/geek, so yeah the chin part sucks for him but his look besides that is pretty normal. What you say is like saying a woman with small boobs is a freak that isn't a real woman, you'd be called the worst epiteths(sp?). Well I'm gonna defend the 125-pounds-no-muscles-20something-community! We are pretty nice easygoing people for the most part. Or at least those of us with chins (natural and prosthetic).

The internet has turned on Cera for some reason.

Stefen

Sorry, Pas!

This film is just too much Cera. Why isn't anyone admitting that is the problem with it?

He belongs in roles where he just pops in and says, "Hey, guys." then eats half a pie before the rest falls on the floor.  
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

children with angels

Quote from: pete on September 02, 2010, 07:57:52 PM
I've already explained to you when you raised the point that yes, girls kiss first frequently in real life: it never happens the same way it does in this type of films, and girls in real life are real, not fantasies piled on each other by screenwriters who don't know how to write women.

Weeeell... Okay, okay - I'm going to drop this one!
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

RegularKarate

I'm so confused by this thread. 

When you take out the opinions on this specific movie, all you have are weird opinions that make zero sense to me.  Why are we talking about girls kissing first?  Why does everyone hate Cera? (I mean real reasons). 

pete

I like him.  I think he's really funny.  him and jonah hill are the only two actors that I'll see in anything.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

children with angels

Agreed on Cera. He's an EXTREMELY talented comic actor. If anything, I think he was ill-served by Wright in this film, which might explain some of the backlash from this. He has a brilliant sense of comic timing (particularly for a comedy of awkwardness), which isn't allowed room to breathe by Wright's meticulously planned direction. It seemed as if the emphasis on fast cutting and super-stylisation didn't let Cera do what he's best at, which is use strange pauses and minute inflections of speech and mannerisms - he appeared kind of pummelled by the formal humour of the movie, at the expense of his more organic comic stylings.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

Stefen

Mike Cera could never play a scientist. He could never play a politician.  :yabbse-cool:
Falling in love is the greatest joy in life. Followed closely by sneaking into a gated community late at night and firing a gun into the air.

AntiDumbFrogQuestion

soooo....considering Edgar Wright's protagonist in his main 2 other films...do they really show Simon Pegg as Mr. Buff?  And Nick Frost?  I mean, they find a way to kick some ass, sooooooooo....as goofy looking as they arrrrrrrrrrre....

by the way, I just read the last page of replies on this thread, and got only about 1/3 of they way down because y'allz mothafuckaz started over-explaining & analyzing the shit.  since when was the guy who brought us "Spaced" meant to have that much analysis put into his work?

Gotta say, my only issue with the film is that I never felt that Scott & Ramona connected that well beyond the "hey I like you" state of things...which is WAAAAAY MUCH BETTER WELL DONE in the Comics. I remember hearing that criticism before and, well, yeap, I can't help but agree with it. I wish I had gone into the film cold in this manner.

Gotta say though, the film did it's job. Scott Pilgrim is the character Michael Cera is portraying, not Michael Cera as Michael Cera in Michael Cera vs. the Michael Cera.   It's good in that the Characters were established first, and written, and THEN the film was cast.

Most everyone I know who has seen this likes it, the only people saying it sucks donkey dong being either on internet threads or film critics. As something that was meant to be likeable to lots of people while NOT being something they were used to with a little thought thrown in for good measure, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World passes (with an A-).

socketlevel

Quote from: AntiDumbFrogQuestion on September 05, 2010, 08:17:20 PM
Most everyone I know who has seen this likes it, the only people saying it sucks donkey dong being either on internet threads or film critics. As something that was meant to be likeable to lots of people while NOT being something they were used to with a little thought thrown in for good measure, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World passes (with an A-).

philistine

:yabbse-grin:

but seriously i'm tired of this defense for a movie. all films are "meant to be likeable", and even in the way you mean to say it inversely too many films are "meant to be likeable". anti-anti-conformity holds no weight with me anymore. This film could have retained all it's likeable features and still been better.
the one last hit that spent you...

New Feeling

saw this finally and think it was a likeable but unsatisfying film.  Considering how hard it tried, none of the peaks were very high, none of the comedy was very funny, and the style wasn't even all that stylish.  Only recently caught up with Shaun of the Dead which I loved, and Hot Fuzz which I enjoyed but I'd have to say that the quality is slipping by a half star with each picture.  Liked it but never need to see it again.     

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

I snuck into this after Machete and had a great time.

If anything is disappointing, it's this thread as opposed to the movie itself.  If you went to Scott Pilgrim vs. the world for an exercise in film literature, I'm not sure what to tell you.  If you went with a bunch of friends to laugh and watch the gorgeous special effects and quick jokes that captures that breathless state of the comic as much if not more than any other comic movie has thus far without entirely marring the translation of comic to screen adaptation, then I think you missed the point.

That's not a cop out, that's just how the film is and it totally succeeded in my eyes.  It was a laugh a minute spectacle with above decent CGI, I ate a lot of popcorn.
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

OrHowILearnedTo

^ Yes, exactly.

This movie is awesome. The effects are amazing, and the level of detail in the sound design is incredible. The most fun I've had in the theatre this year.

modage

I don't think anyone here would accuse me of being a snob.  If anything this movie was MADE for me, I just didn't think it worked at all.  I had 0 laughs a minute.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.