Film Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is a movie that's been making waves, partially because of its indie-comic source material, but mostly because the very first trailer indicated to just about everyone that this was going to be truly an epic movie. There is a possibility that both the marketing and the movie itself would put off certain people with its "in-your-face" indie art direction and video game nerd styled insanity, but such naysayers should know that there's more to the film than crazy. 

Though there is a lot of crazy. 

Scott Pilgrim is a bass player in a Canadian indie band who falls desperately in love with Ramona Flowers, a girl with an always changing hair color and a never changing exasperation. The complication is supposedly the fact that Scott has to defeat Ramona's seven evil exes in order to be with her, but this is something of a ruse. The real problem is Scott's insufficient level of maturity, as indicated by his *ahem* "forgetting" to break up with his previous girlfriend (or pretend girlfriend as she's called, in case we needed any further reminding that Scott was emotionally a four year old) before beginning to date Ramona. He's not a bad guy, and certainly not an anti hero, but his flaws really are what makes him work as a hero. He's stupid in ways we've all been, and the movie's crazy special effects and set pieces genuinely work towards making us empathize with him, rather than just declare him to be "awesome." If none of its brilliant editing, flawless effects, or charming characterization survives to teach the film school brats of the future, then one thing Scott Pilgrim must be remembered for is its peerless balance of its leads charm and flaws. To illustrate my point, there were many points in the movie where I was yelling encouragement at Mr. Pilgrim, but it was never "don't go in there," or "give him a left!;" it was "don't sit there and take that!," "tell her you love her for real!," and even "stop being a complete idiot and kill him!" Simply put, I wasn't yelling at Scott to survive, I was yelling at him to get his head out of his ass. 

This notion of the film as an internal rather than external struggle raises the question of which is more relevant to the movie. Are Scott Pilgrim's action scenes representations of deep relationship struggles, Scott's battles with the league of evil exes being manifestations of his immature issues with Ramona's baggage? Or perhaps is that just pretentious drivel to satisfy the crowd that's too cool for fight scenes? The answer is both and neither. If you want to pretend it's all about spastic action and anyone who says otherwise is a poseur, the movie will back you up. If you insist that the fight scenes are an expensive way to mock people on Scott's level of maturity, then you could find enough in the film to support your argument too. If you think, as I do, that fight scenes are fun both when they represent something and when they're totally friggin awesome, then the movie will say "whatever," and welcome you with open arms as well. 

The point is that Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is good. Very very good. It's better at depth than deep movies, better at spectacle than empty movies, better at love than romances, and better at being a movie than anything it's currently competing with, unless Inception is still playing at your local theatre. Then it's kind of a toss up.

Film Review: Airborne Part 3: The Secret of Identity

For those unfamiliar with the series, The Airborne Trilogy is a set of three films masterminded by up and coming filmmakers Jordan Imbrey and Eric Ugland [both of whom I know and have worked with and neither of whom may be said to benefit from any bias on my part as a film critic because I find them both utterly contemptible( ;) )]. 

Over the course of three movies, the pair have told the tale of Clay Rudolph, played by Imbrey, a dweeby high schooler who discovers that, following a bizarre biking accident, he has the ability to sculpt the air to his will, a power that he continues to master and develop with the aid of his fellow comic afficionado Gary Chew, as he battles crime and villainy in his hometown of Charlotte, North Carolina. The first film, Airborne: It Takes More than Powers, was a success in terms of comedy and introducing its characters well, but was somewhat lacking in most other areas. Airborne Part 2: The Pressure Builds, saw marked improvements in terms of its visuals, strong developments in terms of plot and character, and even greater comedy, leaving hardly a moment that was not laugh out loud funny. Similarly, Airborne Part 3: The Secret of Identity builds on and improves every aspect that has come before it, and yet, perhaps because of the nature of the project, once the Airborne Trilogy reaches its peak, it feels like it still has miles to go. 

One area in which Part 3 does not go the distance is in answering questions. Now, I am personally of the belief that telling the audience about something that doesn't happen is not to be considered a spoiler, but if you disagree and would rather keep such details unknown, consider this a spoiler warning. With that said, The Secret of Identity reveals nothing of how Airborne, or his bully turned rival Louie, (Alias "Pressure Point") acquired their powers, which is a particularly sore spot for Louie since his powers don't seem to have had any sort of trigger.The story is, on the whole, the real big problem with Part 3; aside from not explaining Clay's power source, the film takes a couple of twists that some may find overly jarring, both the twists and the recurring elements that have been well developed can seem somewhat rushed, and most specifically and worringly of all is the absense of a strong antagonist. There is a villain and a climax and a final showdown, but all of these elements are products of a pretty under developed conflict. Both the character who turns out to be the primary antagonist and his relationship/relevence to our hero were introduced in Part 2 and only get much screen time here in Part 3. Ultimately, this all leads to a film that feels like it may have been long enough, but is somehow incomplete, despite clearly being the last in its series.

As I eluded previously, however, a lot of these issues may be have been caused by the what the Airborne Trilogy's true nature is. In a recent interview, writer/director Jordan Imbrey said that the films were meant to be about a hero who was coming of age and still learning how to use his powers. As such, it would seem that the entire trilogy could be considered something of an extended origin rather than a traditional hero story involving a hero's rise to defeat his antagonist (making it very much like the first Iron Man in that respect). So if all three parts of Airborne could be considered a really really long issue #1, as it were, then it makes sense that not all questions are answered, the antagonist of the day is more of an Angleman than a Darkseid, and that it feels as if Airborne is less riding off into the sunset than he is flying off to further adventures, antagonists, and answers, even if we may never learn of such things. 

Furthermore, the aforementioned plot issues really don't do much in the way of preventing one from enjoying The Secret of Identity. The comedy is better than ever (no small feat, given how hard to top part 2's gags were); the characters all go through believable, relatable growth, even if it does sometimes come at an abrupt pace (but hey, isn't life like that sometimes?); and the effects and fight scenes have seen drastic improvements in terms of quality if not necessarily in quantity. The highlight of the whole show for me was seeing Pressure Point kicking butt and taking names towards the end in his awesome reworked costume (I felt the bandana-heavy get up he was sporting in Part 2 was a tad generic), though I felt his powers went somewhat under-expolred, both in terms of his fighting and his overall development. 

All in all, Airborne Part 3: The Secret of Identity, and indeed the entire Airborne Trilogy is highly enjoyable if a little rough around the edges in a few areas. In many ways, the nature of the films (and the filmmakers) shines through in the hero's journey: still learning all the tricks of the trade, not as experienced as the house-hold names, flawed in ways that may never be fixed (or perhaps should never be fixed), but if you take a deep enough look, you'll see the heart of a true hero, even if there's still a long way to go before the fame, fortune, and truly trying obstacles. Do your funny bone, your inner child, your sense of adventure, and the art of independent superhero movies a favor, and give The Airborne Trilogy a look; check out the creators at http://vimeo.com/ericugland and http://vimeo.com/redhead. 

Film Review: The Other Guys

Have you ever known, based both on common sense and the horrible wrenching feeling in your gut, that you were in an abominably horrible place? Have you ever been in such a place, and yet surrounded by peers who laughed merrily with the torment? That was me whilst viewing The Other Guys. I was a long figure in the fourth row tearing his hair out over fare that was making all three or so other people in the cinema laugh raucously. 

It would be childish of me to run screaming up and down the street declaring this to be the worst movie of all time, but seeing as I've already done that, I suppose I may as well say this is the worst movie of the summer. By far. I place most if not all blame squarely on the writer, and honestly, every other aspect of this film is really an impressive effort: strong direction, particularly in the visual department, strong acting with Wahlberg being his typically awesome self and Ferrel giving the most natural and well timed performance one can for such awful jokes, and aside from the occasional editing hiccup, it really seems that all involved with the production of The Other Guys was determined to give their best effort to create a good movie out of an awful script. This feat is not impossible, as anyone whose seen the first Superman movie can attest, but it is incredibly difficult, and this film is a great example of why. No matter who's delivering a bad joke, it's still bad; no matter how talented your "gun-fu" choreographer is, he won't be able to make your audience care about whoever is narrowly escaping death. 

So what is so awful about the writing that all the excellent effort put forth by those depicting its content cannot over come? The shorter, and far more insulting version, goes like this: it's like the people who gave us Ren and Stimpy attempted to make a parody of buddy cop flicks (a genre that, need I remind you, no longer exists outside of parodies). To elaborate, none of the characters, from Wahlberg's angry straight-man to Ferrel's nerdy paper pusher act in any kind of sensical manner. The movie quickly sets into a pattern: introduce a scenario so whacky it's completely incongruous, have our two leads react to it with neurotic alien dialogue and anger respectively, throw in a series of awkward and equally non-sensical jokes, then get the leads out of there pronto and move them onto the next insane set-piece asap. It's complete insanity plus gob-smackingly senseless reactions times blinding fast pace. But the fact that the movie moves along quickly doesn't by any means mean that it's plot is truly moving; it's just running around in circles from bad jokes to craziness while the plot sits directly below all of this separated by a mile deep sheet of glass; you can always see it and know exactly what's going on, but it's kind of fuzzy and wonky and you're not going to actually get down there and get involved with it for a long time. 

The Other Guys is one of the worst kinds of movies in that it's a waste of time for all involved, it looked really good in the trailers so its awfulness comes as a sucker punch and it may still make a lot of money, and it has more bad jokes than the Veggie Tales Bible (which mercifully does not yet exist). Yet in another sense, it's of the best kind of movies, in that it's inspiring. It's inspired me not to count on any summer movie season to stay mediocre and never stray into abject horribleness. It's inspired me to not focus so much on directors- as opposed to writers- as the deciding factor in how good a movie will be. But most of all it's inspired me to write another, much better movie, about a frustrated film critic who goes on a shooting spree. I'll call it: The Other Guys Made Me Do It!

Film Review: Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore

It has often been commented by reviewers that one of the most difficult kind of film to review is a good comedy. Comedy films are judged almost exclusively based on how funny they are, so the difficulty in explaining success at humor is partially due to humor's inherently abstract nature, and partially due to the critic's desire not to spoil the movie they are reviewing. Neither of these factors are an issue in assesing Cats and Dogs, leading me to conclude that another, equally difficult kind of film to review is a really really really bad comedy.

The difficulty in describing the reason behind Cats and Dogs 2's abject horribleness is that very little on display in the film is terrible in an overtly obvious way. The animals are cute, some of the jokes are passable enough to garner a giggle or two, and the plot, while stupid in the way that comedy plots are generally allowed to be, keeps things moving quickly enough that no one will be terribly bored. In many ways, it's the sort of movie this summer has been teaching us to expect: something to get you and the kids out of the house and into another air conditioned building with a bunch of over priced snacks in your lap; nothing too horrible to endure, but nothing so amazing that you will be forced to think about it.

If you do have the sheer gall to think about it however, you will be discover that you have somehow found yourself seated before the worst movie of the year. This is the case for various reasons, the most notable of which is a single character: the pidgeon known as Seamus, voiced by Katt Williams. First off, he's horribly racist in a way this is not instantly apparent, since a pidgeon is not exactly a common figure of black stereotyping, but put simply, compare Seamus's "ghetto speak" to the vocal mannerisms of the crows from Disney's Dumbo, then take a moment to reflect on just how much growing up hollywood's been doing these days. Just to add insult to injury, this character, who gets an unfortunately large helping of screen time, isn't in the least bit amusing even if you can somehow set aside everything that makes him offensive. His purpose in the film is to make obvious, over-used, and poorly timed quips when not pretending to be relevent to what the film claims qualifies as a plot.

Comedy plots tend to get something of a free ride, being often allowed to contain as much depth, heart, and story as a 20-or-so minute sit-com episode stretched out to feature length. Because a comedy promises, and hopefully keeps the promise to keep an audience laughing at a steady rate for an hour and a half, a complex story is pretty well not required for entertainment needs to be met. However, the plot of Cats and Dogs is not just stretched, not just contrived, not even just plain stupid, but impossible to follow. The devices and macguffins come and go with no coherence, and you will be so utterly confused and bored as you sit there trying to make sense of it all that any enjoyment you could possibly have immagined was present in the jokes will be drained out like the life blood from the still living bodies of the careers of all involved with this film's production.

A lot of this criticism may sound generic and vague, the tell-tale signs of a bitter critic eagerly bashing a film that does not cater directly to his tastes as a means of self-gratification. While that is not (entirely) the case, I will admit that Cats and Dogs is not the kind of film that will violently rob your children of their capacity for higher thinking, but this movie rubbed me in several wrong ways and I have deemed it worthy of death, so I'll close on this note:

Do you remember the first Cats and Dogs? Vaguely? Yeah, I kind of did. Do you remember anything that actually happened in that movie beyond "doggy and kitty fall down go boom?" Didn't think so. This film never deserved to exist and the people making it clearly understood that. You should too.