Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010)

Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Mark Webber, Anna Kendrick




As I sat down to watch Scott Pilgrim last week, it was admittedly with some bating of the breath. I’m a massive Edgar Wright fan (as if anybody who’s watched Spaced and Shaun couldn’t be) and the trailers for SP had literally blown me away. I was worried it wouldn’t live up to the hype; worried that Edgar Wright would’ve been forced to steer away from his usual singular style under the watchful eye of Hollywood. Thank God I hadn’t read the books at that moment in time, or I would’ve been a wreck!

Scott Pilgrim is essentially the story of boy meets girl, but about twenty times more awesome. Scott is a 23 year old slacker from Toronto who’s making nothing of his life, plays in a band called Sex Bob-Omb, and has recently acquired himself a 17 year old Chinese girlfriend called Knives Chau who goes to Catholic school and wears a uniform. Nuff said. The subject of much ridicule from his band mates, his rich gay roommate (Kieran Culkin), and his far worldlier younger sister (Anna Kendrick), Scott finds himself drifting through life. That is, until Ramona Flowers (Winstead) rollerblades through one of his dreams and into his local library.

Scott immediately becomes obsessed with Ramona; obsessed with the ever-changing colours of her hair, her cool and mysterious American background, and, naturally, the fact that she’s pretty damn hot. He goes from stalking her at a party, to ordering a package he knows she will end up delivering, to not signing for the parcel until she agrees to go on a date with him. However, his obsession with dating Ramona leaves him no time to think what to do about Knives, who is steadily falling in (17 year old) love with him. As his relationship with Ramona begins, Sex Bob-Omb get their first show at the Toronto Battle of the Bands.

But Ramona has been keeping a small detail from Scott about her past – which catches up with her just as Sex Bob-Omb start their debut show. Ramona has seven evil exes, all intent on fighting Scott Pilgrim to the death. The first of these, Matthew Patel, shows up during first five seconds of the gig and shoots fireballs at the stage. Scott is forced to fight him, and it’s from this moment on that the film really gets into its stride.

Despite chavs walking out of the cinema both times I saw it, I absolutely loved this film. In fact, I think the fact it can force a chav to leave my presence without presenting them with an ASBO made me love it just that little bit more. Edgar Wright’s direction and attention to detail is utterly sublime. He has created a film that’s completely unique and like, totally awesome.

It’s a retro gamer’s dream, containing so many references that even a mild super Mario fan could find themselves experiencing a slight nerdgasm. The cast are all brilliant – every evil ex hilarious – and I don’t think I can find much fault at all with this film.

Wright has poured every drop of his blood, sweat, tears and God knows what else into this film, and it really shows.

Level Up, Mr Wright.

Kick Ass (2010)

Starring: Aaron Johnson, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Mark Strong, Chloe Moretz and Nicolas Cage.

Kick Ass came out of nowhere. One minute Jonathon Ross was tweeting about his wife’s new film that no-one’s heard of, then suddenly it’s everywhere. On the cover of Empire magazine, on the sides of busses, all over the TV. Most of my work colleagues have heard about it, though one mistakenly interpreted it to be a new spoof movie – ala the Wayans brothers – and had already decided to give it a wide berth (I called him a twat and set his facts straight, naturally).

Kick Ass seemed to gain momentum overnight, but is it worthy of the hype?

Kick Ass is a film about a normal, geeky American teenager (Johnson) living in New York. One day on his way home from the comic store, he gets mugged for the millionth time, and decides he’s had enough. He orders a frankly awful wetsuit and balaclava combo off the internet, and goes out into the neighbourhood to right some wrongs under the pseudonym of Kick Ass.

Naturally, he gets stabbed up and hit by a car.

With most of his bones shattered, he has several metal bone replacements inserted (“Cool, I look like Wolverine!”) and ends up with such damaged nerve endings he is able to feel little pain. So he chucks the wetsuit back on and gets back out there.

Meanwhile, the local mob boss in town is having a hard time, as all his cocaine deals are interrupted by a masked assailant described by his lackeys as looking “like Batman. But not Batman.” As Kick Ass steps up his campaign to clean up the neighbourhood, a video of him saving a man from a gang beating ends up on Youtube. With that, the mob boss puts a mark on Kick Ass’ head, convinced he is responsible for all his lost revenue. He enlists his comic-obsessed son (Mintz-Plasse) to pose as the new superhero in town to bring Kick Ass in.

Unbeknown to everyone, the real superheroes in town are the father-daughter combo of Big Daddy (Cage) and Hit Girl (Moretz). An ex-cop, framed by said mob boss and sent to jail for coke dealing, Big Daddy has vengeance on the brain. Since his parole, he has been training his 12 year old daughter to take bullets, run up walls and fling knives around.

In summation: don’t try to take this kid’s lunch money.

I really can’t put much more of the plot without giving everything away. But you get the general idea – superheroes, guns and geeks.

So, let’s start by talking about Aaron Johnson. He’s 19, English, going out with a 43 year old film director, and soon to be father of their child. I’m not one to be prejudiced about age gaps but...that’s fucked up, right?

You may recognise Johnson (if you’re a girl) from Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging, where he played a hunk – a far cry from the geeky character he portrays here. Likewise you may have seen him in the more respectable Nowhere Boy as a young John Lennon (his casting was no doubt helped along by the fact he was boning the director).

I’d say Kick Ass was probably a pretty easy character to play, as they go. However, Johnson has had the chance to start showing off his acting ability in a number of varied roles, and I found him to be a perfectly believable geek (if not a tad too good looking). I thought he was fine, and as a trio with his two best friends he provides some of the biggest laughs of the film. Some great laughs also arise from the girl of his dreams thinking he’s homosexual – and him playing along to spend time with her.

I don’t have too much more to say about him – I’d need to see more of his acting repertoire to judge if he’s more than just a pretty face, though I applaud any English actor who breaks Hollywood, especially at 19.

Christopher Mintz-Plasse is best known (of course) for being the infamous McLovin. Having only seen him in Role Models and Superbad before Kick Ass, I could say he’s typecast and moan about that. But what’s wrong with being typecast when you’re absolutely hilarious and brilliant? He’s not a major role in this film, but every scene he’s in is full of laughs.

I love this guy.

Him and Johnson deliver (in my opinion) the funniest scene of the film. I won’t give it away, but I’ll just say this – Gnarls Barkley.

Now, Nicolas Cage. Nicolas Cage is a douche. You don’t need me to tell you that if you’ve been subjected to any of his acting “work” over the last 5 years. The last film I genuinely thought he was good in was Adaptation. Adaptation is 8 years old, and he’s been in 22 films since then. It seems any film that stars Cage these days should come with a label under the certification

“Warning: May well be shit.”

Thank god Kick Ass doesn’t need that certification. Cage steps back and takes a smaller role, is annoying to the minimum, and actually delivers some pretty good laughs. I congratulate him for being brave enough to take on a film where his character’s first scene involves shooting his 12 year old daughter in the chest. He still irritated me a bit, but this is a far cry from Bangkok Dangerous, Knowing, National Treasure, or any of that terrible wank he’s been appearing in lately.

So, what did I think of the film as a whole?

It’s good. It is. It’s consistently funny, missing the mark only a few times. It’s violent in a way that will make you grin and wince at the same time, but revel in every second of the action. It takes the piss out of crap superhero movies like there’s no tomorrow, while showing respect for the greats simultaneously. It’s pretty well written, and the direction is sublime.

There are only a few little gripes I have with the film. The main one being is that Kick Ass has his own Myspace page. I mean, who the hell are they trying to kid? Myspace are spending so much money trying to get into films lately, with a huge segment in Funny People and now a prominent part in Kick Ass. Now, I don’t want to be mean to my first ever friend on Myspace but seriously, Tom, you’re flogging a dead horse. Myspace is going to be completely socially irrelevant in 10 years, maybe even 5. While it still may be used to showcase new musical talent, it will never be used as a social networking site to the extent it once was. The fact that Kick Ass has a Myspace page is going to date the film considerably, but if it was funding from the site that made the film possible, I guess that’s ok with me.

Some of the CGI isn’t fantastic, but it really didn’t matter to me. The action sequences are just breath-taking; I’ll suffer fake looking flames for a 12 year old annihilating a corridor of grown men any day.

This film is going to be Chloe Moretz’s big break. I have no doubt whatsoever about that. She’s only just 13, but she was the film’s biggest, brightest star. Hit Girl is most definitely going to be a hit with almost everyone. Who doesn’t love watching a 12 year old girl chop people’s legs off and cuss like a pro? Seriously though, I saw Moretz in 500 Days of Summer in a fairly small role, and thought that she seemed to have pretty impressive acting chops for someone so young. This film is without a doubt her vehicle to stardom. She is responsible for the majority of the laughs, the majority of the deaths, and is the essence of the whole film.

She’s the one who really kicks ass.

I would definitely recommend this film to almost anyone - except your nan.

The Lovely Bones (2010)

Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon

The Lovely Bones is an adaptation of the wonderful, celebrated novel by Alice Sebold. Naturally, when such a well –loved book is adapted, it’s impossible to please everyone. Peter Jackson was brave to take on the project, being far removed from his previous epic Lord of the Rings, the not-so-epic King Kong, and the cult favourites that are Braindead and The Frighteners.

The Lovely Bones is the story of Susie Salmon, a 14 year old girl whose life is just beginning. On the way home from school one day, taking a shortcut through the neighbourhood cornfield, her neighbour Mr Harvey invites her into a den he has built under the soil. He then proceeds to drug, rape and brutally murder her. The rest of the novel concerns Susie watching over her family from heaven, seeing her murderer quietly get on with his life undetected, and witnessing her parent’s marriage crumble.

So, first things first. I’ve read the book. I like the book very much, and it made me cry more than I’d care to admit. It was full of feeling, full of sadness and, ironically, full of life. Unlike other films though, I wasn’t worried about any director “ruining” the book (the same cannot be said for The Golden Compass). The Lovely Bones is such a long, detailed and involved novel; I couldn’t possibly imagine anyone being able to fit in all the important parts (and the notion of “important parts” is entirely subjective anyway). Personally, I feel The Lovely Bones is too involved, and too intricate for film. It would’ve done well as a high budget TV series, a-la Twin Peaks, if you ask me.

Saoirse Ronan makes a brilliant Susie Salmon. She’s almost exactly how I imagined her, and even if she wasn’t it wouldn’t have mattered. She’s a fabulous actress for her age (16) and plays Susie with just the right level of naivety, maturity and uncertainty. While traditionally I prefer to keep my imagined book characters away from Hollywood’s version of them (Ron, Harry & Hermione for instance), I’ll happily re-read the Lovely Bones now with Ronan’s Susie clear in my mind.

Mark Wahlberg’s Mr Salmon was a huge relief for me. For me, Wahlberg will never, ever escape the memory of the travesty that was M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening. Every time I think of Wahlberg, I see him running down a lane screaming “The plants! The plants are coming to get meee!”. I’d labelled him as a terrible actor, and moved on. Ryan Gosling from The Notebook was set to play Mr Salmon (which I would’ve liked, again for the perve-factor). Gosling refused the role though, as he felt he wasn’t old or mature enough to do it justice. On hearing Wahlberg had stepped into his shoes, I was a little horrified, but curious. And, thank God, the man proved me wrong. He can act! Not only can he act, but he can also carry a scene without being melodramatic, irritating or obvious.

Who would’ve thunk it?

I guess Shyamalan’s direction was to blame for his awful performance. Makes me wish Wahlberg had just turned around and told him to shove his directing up his arse though. (Zooey Deschanel receives a get out of jail free card for The Happening, as she wasn’t really annoying, and then completely rocked 500 Days of Summer).

Rachel Weisz as Mrs Salmon was somewhat wasted. She’s a far bigger character in the book, and I didn’t like the re-writing of her character’s reaction to Susie’s death. She is shown as pathetic and broken, a shell of a woman who runs away almost immediately so she doesn’t have to face Susie’s death. If the book correlated correctly with the film, she would have left Mr Salmon because he got too obsessed with finding Susie’s killer and neglected her entirely – not because (as the film would have you believe) she couldn’t cope. They also decide to do away with her affair with the Lead Detective, Len Fenerman. I believe Jackson chose to do this as he seems to have been determined to reinforce the themes of “family” and “home”.

Susan Sarandon, as Susie’s grandmother, injected some much needed life into the film. I think she actually improved on the book’s character, adding just that little extra charisma and humour that Sarandon always brings in spades. She’s pretty much the only comic relief provided throughout the film, and without her I think I would’ve been trying to suffocate myself with a popcorn box (much easier in cinemas where they serve popcorn in bags).

So, the film itself. Well, it’s ok. I don’t think it’s a masterpiece and I don’t think it stands up to the majority of Jackson’s previous work (though I think I’d rather watch The Lovely Bones than King Kong). There’s just far too much material to work with, and I can’t imagine the nightmare Jackson had deciding what was important and what wasn’t. It definitely doesn’t benefit from the Hollywood treatment, and the true feeling of the novel never seems to come through on screen.

Normally, a film about death and funerals and leaving loved ones behind etc would have my eyes streaming like a 5 year old’s nose.

The film just didn’t have the right tone – Jackson’s stunning visuals of the afterlife seem needlessly inserted to garner Oscar nominations – and it suffered from what I like to call “12A” syndrome. The novel is heart wrenching, sophisticated, sometimes sexy and sometimes explicitly gruesome. Everything is toned down in the film for the kiddies – no sex, only hints of real violence and gore, and the subject of child molestation is neatly skipped around - just very, very lightly hinted at. I’m not saying I want to see a child being raped on a 20ft screen, but I think it’s a bit of a cop out in this day and age to leave it “assumed”.

Stanley Tucci as the murderer, on the other hand, is a brilliant performance. He is absolutely fucking terrifying in a bumbling, nervous and just downright creepy persona. I can’t praise his performance enough. Unsettling and unnerving, but amazing. Tucci and Susie’s sister Lindsay deliver the best scene of the entire film – literally the only time I was on the edge of my seat – in a sequence that alludes to Hitchcock’s Rear Window.

The only other major gripe I have with this film is that the characters of Ray Singh and especially Ruth are entirely wasted. Ruth is important, but gets so little screen time you feel yourself wondering if the projectionist spliced out a section by mistake, especially given the ending (but no spoilers).

I’d see the film if you’ve read the book and don’t feel too strongly about it. If you’re a diehard fan of the novel, I’d steer well clear. And those of you who haven’t read it – I would strongly advise you do so– you may find yourself feeling a little short-changed upon leaving the cinema, with a feeling there was something missing that you can’t quite put your finger on.

That “thing” that The Lovely Bones lacks, but through sheer context should have in triple servings, is the pure essence of the novel – real, human emotion.

New Moon (2009)

Apologies, as I know this review is hugely belated, and now probably highly irrelevant. I found this in my blog folder, almost finished, so decided to post it. My sincerest apologies go to anyone who owns the full length Edward Cullen door poster.

Starring: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner
I’m not going to explain New Moon’s plot in any great length. Anyone who wants to know already does, and I’m not looking to irritate those who hate Twilight with a fiery passion. So in a nutshell; vampires with sparkly belly buttons, cuddly werewolves, and a girl who’s hot for a bloke who stays up all night (I can see where she’s coming from on that one).

I’m not one to make my mind up about something until I’ve made sure to read/watch/listen to it. When told about Twilight, my initial reaction was

“Oh...so basically Buffy then?”

Being a hardcore Buffy/Angel fan, I attempted to approach Twilight with as open a mind as I could muster. I watched the film (Twilight) first, and was reasonably impressed. Mainly because of the pretty boys, I’ll be the first to admit. I decided to read the books, fully aware of how the film can only give you half the impression the book can.

And God, Stephanie Meyer has got to be one of the most illiterate bestselling authors I’ve ever encountered.

I swear I found made up words.

Twilight was an ok read though, so I thought I’d soldier on with reading New Moon before I saw the film. Big fucking mistake. New Moon was so dull. So desperately, desperately dull. It made me realise that any investment I had in Twilight as a series was purely aesthetic. The aforementioned pretty boys and passionate snogging was pretty much all that kept me mildly interested in the series.

Needless to say, when I went to watch New Moon, I wasn’t expecting fireworks.

New Moon had a different director to Twilight – a Mr Chris Weitz, director of teen-favourite American Pie and the rather less celebrated Golden Compass (an instance where Hollywood took a shit on an absolutely brilliant novel). I actually thought Catherine Hardwicke’s direction in Twilight was fairly good, so wasn’t sure about Weitz replacing her.

My worries were almost immediately justified as one of the first scenes showed Bella’s truck screeching through the streets of Forkes, accompanied by generic teen music ala American Pie.

My problem with Twilight franchise is that it’s another blatant and shameless gimmick that the general public have let themselves get sucked into. I mean, I get it. Vampires are cool. But vampires are much cooler when they’re kicking butt, taking names and fully recognising how melodramatic they are (Angel). There’s also something to be said for the True Blood brand of vampires, with their hot sex and “fang-bangers”. I’ve got nothing against vampires being heralded as sexy – but surely half of their appeal is that they’re creatures of the night? They’re supposed to burst into flame in sunlight, not twinkle like a twee Christmas tree.

Meyer’s vampires are lame. Meyer’s characters are under-developed and dull. Bella Swan is an entirely infuriating girl, so self-involved and introverted that she’ll sit in her room and mope for 3 months straight. Edward Cullen is probably the most melodramatic vampire ever to grace our screens, and sometimes I just wish Jacob would give him a slap.

I hold my hands up and admit, I’ll be watching the next 2 films (or is it 3? I heard rumours Breaking Dawn will be 2 parts). I will be watching them because Robert Pattinson is pretty, and because of Taylor Lautner’s abs. I will be watching them with little hope of an engrossing story or any exciting character development. I’ll basically be watching them because I’m a girl, and I’m a perve. I feel this is fine, as I’m 22 and can decide who I want to perve on. However, what drives me mad about the Twilight franchise - and Stephenie Meyer in particular – is that she writes under the pretext of being a Christian.

She claims the Twilight saga is chockfull of religious referencing and important messages. I claim, Stephenie Meyer, that you’re just selling sex to a bunch of teenagers who don’t know any better. I also claim that Bella Swan is a god-awful role model for young girls. She bases her whole life around a man, spends 3 months moping in her room when said man leaves her, and then only perks up when Jacob enters her life (oh goody, another man!).

So go and see New Moon if you liked the book (someone’s got to, I suppose).

Go see New Moon if you fancy watching poncey vampires sparkle, and buff werewolves charging about.

But for God’s sake, don’t expect anything original, or anything that Joss Whedon hasn’t already covered in considerably superior detail.

Oh and one more thing...TEAM JACOB.