Tell us what you thought of ‘Scott Pilgrim vs. the World’

Posted by · 8:11 pm · August 13th, 2010

I’m feeling like pretty much the only guy on the block not losing my shit over Edgar Wright’s “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World,” and as always, I’m fine with that.  But it hits theaters as part of summer 2010’s last gasps and I’d like to hear your thoughts, so cut loose with them in the comments section below when you get a chance to see the film.




→ 48 Comments Tags: | Filed in: Daily

48 responses so far

  • 1 8-13-2010 at 11:43 pm

    Glenn said...

    Most of these characters are such vacant shells. The only character that appears to have a regular job that pays money is roundly ridiculed and mocked whereas those who don’t do anything and yet fall arse backwards into a hip pad to live and with foot to eat are held us as heroes.

    Sexist, too, and while it is visually impeccable – Oscar nominations are really warranted for the visual effects and probably art direction, but I doubt it’ll get them, that Contemporary Costume Design guild win should be in the bag, too, but ya never know with those people – it’s a movie I’ve found myself getting angrier and angrier at as the days go by, which is a shame.

  • 2 8-14-2010 at 12:41 am

    Tye-Grr said...

    I loved it. I thought it was hilarious, fast paced, brilliantly edited, and well acted by a great cast. Edgar Wright gets a job well done from me.

  • 3 8-14-2010 at 1:07 am

    Kevin K. said...

    Loved it. Had a few minor nitpicks from an adaptation standpoint (most regarding how they successfully yet unsuccessfully crammed 6 graphic novels into an under 2 hour film) but I thought it was far and away the funniest film of the year and one of the most visually inventive (the most visually stunning film thus far remains Inception), and ultimately a blast.

  • 4 8-14-2010 at 1:32 am

    arjay said...

    If by “block” you mean comic-con, then yes, you are on your own. But outside that little universe, SPvTW isn’t getting universal praise. It’s only on 68% at metacritic. That’s hardly Toy Story 3

  • 5 8-14-2010 at 5:35 am

    Duncan Houst said...

    I thought the movie was great. It’s no Inception or The Kids Are All Right, but it’s still one of the better films of the summer. People who criticize the film as being hollow, clearly don’t get the point. It’s a comedy in the same vein as Edgar Wright’s other projects. This is an R-rated film, despite its PG-13 rating.

  • 6 8-14-2010 at 8:05 am

    Kyle said...

    Glenn

    How many different movie blogs are you going to post this same rant on? Just wondering…did you hit the AVclub too while you were at it?

    As for the film, I thought it was quite awesome in some ways (Brandon Routh’s character, the soundtrack, most of the visuals, Kieran Culkin were highlights for me) but there were some moments where my mind started to wander…I’d say the movie was akin to a really ADD Kill Bill, not the worst of compliments.

  • 7 8-14-2010 at 8:24 am

    Jacob S. said...

    I thought it was cool as hell and I was REALLY impressed with Michael Cera. I mean, how many actors can successfully pull off that character? And Cera did it.

  • 8 8-14-2010 at 9:29 am

    qwiggles said...

    Glenn,

    I’m guessing you mean Julie? Because Stacey also has a job, and isn’t mocked for it (in fact it’s suggested she’s basically the older sibling because of it), and Ramona also has a job and isn’t mocked for it. Presumably Wallace also has a job, because he makes clear to Scott that he’s going to have to start paying him some rent if he wants to keep living with him. For Stephen and Kim, the band is their job — although in the books they also have to, you know, get paying jobs to supplement it — and it’s made pretty clear that they’re the only ones who have a future in music: certainly not Scott. If you think Scott is depicted as a hero *because* he is leeching off Wallace, you obviously didn’t watch the scene where he had to redo his previous exchange in such a way that he claimed responsibility for his lazy ambling.

    I’m not saying any of this is brilliant, and not even dealing with quality, but you’re deliberately ignoring parts of the movie to give credence to an impression you got that isn’t supported by the text.

  • 9 8-14-2010 at 9:47 am

    MovieMan said...

    It juggles about fourteen different genres with skill. It’s a little slice of cinematic heaven unlike anything else this year. With all this talk about “Inception” being one of a kind, I think this film is head-over-heels the better entertainment and actually doesn’t feel imitative of other films. Easily one of the best films of the summer.

  • 10 8-14-2010 at 11:37 am

    Dylan said...

    People have been complaining a lot about this summer’s crop of films, but four high-quality films make this summer better than last year’s for me.

    1. Toy Story 2
    2. The Kids Are All Right
    3. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
    4. Inception

    (list not necessarily in order of quality)

    As for Scott Pilgrim, which is the focus of this article, I loved it! It was funny, entertaining, innovative, high-energy, and the soundtrack was great as well. I think movies like this and Inception should be applauded for taking new approaches to cinema.

    (Another high point for me was Wallace. As a gay man myself, it’s nice to see such a main-stream movie treat its gay characters as real people and not just butt-of-the-joke stereotypes.)

  • 11 8-14-2010 at 12:24 pm

    Fitz said...

    Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. I can’t see Wright botching this one.

    His visual streak is his own and at least the material feels original (even though it’s adapted from a comic series).

  • 12 8-14-2010 at 12:47 pm

    MovieMan said...

    Dylan: I didn’t know “Toy Story 2” came out this year. ;)

  • 13 8-14-2010 at 2:20 pm

    ninja said...

    I haven`t seen it but it`s tanking at the boxoffice because it costed,like, $60 mio. I don`t get it. Why is a basically nerd movie that is marketed to nerds only made for twice as much as the first Twilight movie which had a huge fanbase? With the budget like this, Universal set itself and people involved for failure. Cera is already called boxoffice bomb. Wright made another geek movie that didn`t make a bank. Was it really impossible to make this thing for $15-20 mio? I know that some special effects are in there but District 9 had them too and costed only $37 mio. Why is Scott Pilgrim so expensive? It`s mind-boggling stupid that it is. I mean, how could they overestimate its audience after underperformance of other Internet movies such as SoaP, Kick Ass,etc? $60 mio means that expected gross is at least $120 mio for the budget to be justified. Who the hell thought this thing would make that much?

  • 14 8-14-2010 at 3:01 pm

    Matthew Starr said...

    Could not get into this movie. A lot of sound and fury but at no point did I care about any of the characters or their feelings. It got a little tedious after the third evil ex.

    I’ll stick with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.

  • 15 8-14-2010 at 3:04 pm

    Tye-Grr said...

    It’s a shame that it’s bombing… It’s a really great film., unlike anything else out right now, or before it. And Cera is getting unfair criticism here, because he did fine work, although I agree that Kieran Culkin walks away with every scene he’s in.

  • 16 8-14-2010 at 3:28 pm

    Roshan said...

    I consider this as a small film which looks like a blockbuster material. The script does have a indie feel to it. Overall its harmless entertainment and a complete fun ride. Its geeky and it will find its audience eventually!

  • 17 8-14-2010 at 3:31 pm

    Speaking English said...

    Really fun. Just really, really fun.

  • 18 8-14-2010 at 7:42 pm

    Josh said...

    I’ll second Speaking English; this was the most fun I’ve had at a movie theater this year. Along with Toy Story 3 and Inception, this one makes the summer season worthwhile.

    Having said that, I am genuinely shocked that anyone thought this movie would make more this weekend than it’s going to make. The marketing for the movie has been, IMO, uniquely awful (the poster doesn’t mention the graphic novel, doesn’t mention Cera’s name, hides his face, and gives no hint to the many battles). That the movie got made, and for as much money as was spent, makes me happy.

    Great experience.

  • 19 8-14-2010 at 7:48 pm

    Emily said...

    Pretty likable. Not lovable.

    I read the first three volumes, and it pretty much felt just like them. Which is good. But it’s mostly all fun and no substance in the long run.

    Wallace = <3

  • 20 8-14-2010 at 9:31 pm

    Ibad said...

    I loved it. Obviously in the third act it lost its steam, from the numbness of the audience to the effects at that point, to the straying of the actual storyline to the writing just not being as strong. But the first thirds are so much fun, so funny, so filled with reference after brilliant reference that it makes it really easy to rewatch up until she first breaks up with him (which starts up the weak third act). I thought the acting all around was really strong, even Michael Cera (even though he’s still playing his usual Michael Cera part). But I think Kieran Culkin and Anna Kendrick in particular were standouts. And there were less of them in the third act, too, which might also explain how deflated it kinda got. But Edgar Wright was the star of every frame, and I think overall it was one of the most ambitious ventures in editing I’ve ever seen.

  • 21 8-14-2010 at 10:04 pm

    Speaking English said...

    What’s wrong with the third act? The whole piece with Gideon and Scott’s “extra life” is fantastic, and the final battle is when the video game aesthetics really reach their apex.

  • 22 8-14-2010 at 11:52 pm

    Glenn said...

    My issue with the third act is the twins. They just sorta showed up and then disappeared without much drama.

    qwiggles, how many movie blogs are you going to go to and read about Scott Pilgrim? It’s hardly my fault we visit a couple of the same blogs. And considering everyone is wetting themselves over the movie, I’ll keep on ranting for as long as need be. That being said, I really like the cast and this its visually impeccable (Wright is a talent, that’s for sure, but I still prefer his first two movies by a very big margin).

  • 23 8-15-2010 at 7:50 am

    qwiggles said...

    Glenn — I think you’re confusing me with Kyle, guy. Have a reread.

  • 24 8-15-2010 at 9:08 am

    Kyle said...

    Glenn

    It gets a little annoying to read the same point OVER and OVER again on this blog from you, as well as your posting on Nathaniel’s blog. You don’t like the movie, you think its sexist and the characters are shallow…we get it. Move on.

  • 25 8-15-2010 at 9:53 am

    MattD said...

    Saw one of the free screenings at Comic-Con and just couldn’t get into it the way I wanted. Echoing others, I thought the editing, style, look and all the crafts were remarkable, original, and fantastic. Personally, I just couldn’t connect with any of the characters and even being a member of the target audience — I grew up on video games and the graphic media onslaught of the 80s — it left me emotionally cold. I’m intrigued to see it again, in a less hectic setting, and hope I’ll enjoy it more then.

    @Josh: I beg to differ. I think the poster works great for what it is, but the marketers have spent much more time trying to both the geek market and the mainstream markets with trailers, commercials, and internet ads. And THOSE have been filled with the visuals, battles, and Cera himself. Not to mention some of the most interesting marketing attempts in recent memory, with the interactive trailer, free iPhone 8bit game, and getting poster artists to create new works based on it. My group of friends was walking on a street, one of us was wearing a “Pilgrim” shirt and a pre-teen kid said “Is that the new Michael Cera movie? I like him. I’ll see that.”

  • 26 8-15-2010 at 10:22 am

    Matthew Starr said...

    Looks like this movie bob-ombed at the office. Couldn’t even beat Inception!

  • 27 8-15-2010 at 10:28 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Kyle: He was asked specifically by this post what he thought of the film. He has every right to offer up those points, whether they’ve been made elsewhere or not. Clearly you’re just a bit chafed at those points, but counter them if that’s the case. When he gets to Speaking English’s “Hurt Locker sucks” level of repetition, then a “move on” will be in order.

  • 28 8-15-2010 at 12:35 pm

    Speaking English said...

    Thanks Kris…

  • 29 8-15-2010 at 12:44 pm

    Kyle said...

    Kris

    Fair enough. How about this then?

    Glenn, could you at least strive for a coherently written point if you’re going to repeat it everywhere?

  • 30 8-15-2010 at 1:04 pm

    Kevin K. said...

    Glenn,

    How is the film sexist? If anything, it has the strongest female characters I’ve seen in a film all year. The girls all kick so much ass it’s not even funny. Plus, they don’t just act as love interests to the men, they have independent personalities of their own and sometimes stand out more than the men.

  • 31 8-15-2010 at 7:09 pm

    Glenn said...

    Kevin, strong female characters? Where? Scott’s sister is portrayed as a woman who routinely dates gay men, Ramona is a wet blanket of a fantasy girlfriend and Alison Pill’s drummer character is a non-entity. That’s not indicative of the performances, however, just the characters.

    The sexist part comes from the character of Roxy. She doesn’t get defeated in battle because she’s the better figher, no she is defeated by Scott touching an erogenous zone! She dies via orgasm! I didn’t see Ramona telling Scott that Todd has a sensitive spot behind is ear or anything. Why did they have to go and use sex as a weapon against Roxy? I haven’t read the comics, but I have been told that she does in a completely different way in them, so it strikes me as a quite sexist that they’d change it. She’s not given much of an opportunity to prove herself as a worthy adversary (neither are the twins, but that was just sloppy) because, I dunno, she’s a woman and has a vagina and, thus, has crippling orgasms or something like that. Were the makers queasy about showing Scott be too violent towards Roxy?

    Again, none of this is anything against the cast or the technical prowess. It’s the way I read it. Kyle, I have only mentioned my issues in threads that relate to Scott Pilgrim. I’m sure people have said the same POSITIVE comments on multiple blogs, btw. Is that allowed?

  • 32 8-15-2010 at 7:40 pm

    Jack said...

    Glen-

    About the women in “Scott Pilgrim”: Scott’s sister isn’t portrayed as a woman who routinely dates gay man; she dates one straight man who Wallace turns gay, which is hardly the same thing, and doesn’t make her a weak woman character. Besides, the joke with the gay boyfriend takes up about 1% of her screen time and story arc; the other 99% she’s portrayed as a likeable, (more or less) morally grounded woman with a strong personality that has a purpose in the movie other than to be a love interest for a male character, which is incredibly rare in mainstream Hollywood movies.

    Also, I hardly think that Ramona is just a “wet blanket of a fantasy girlfriend.” She has a multi-layered, complex personality, is a clearly flawed person, and is much more independent and self-assertive than most women in romantic comedies. I also think that you forgot about Knives Chau: True, she spends most of the movie stalking Scott, but her entire arc is about her realizing how he manipulated her and how she doesn’t need to be with him to be happy. It’s the first time in a long time that a romantic comedy with a love triangle has had a second woman who wasn’t an obnoxious bitch.

    And as for the joke about Roxy dying by orgasm…It’s just that: A joke. I think you’re reading WAY too much into it. It’s obvious throughout the movie that the filmmakers wanted to kill each evil ex in a way different than just having Scott beat them in a fight (Scott tricks Lucas Lee in to skateboarding hismelf to death; Todd loses his vegan powers; the twins are beaten in a battle of the bands), and this was another way of adding variety to the formula.

    Furthermore, you have to remember that the movie is telling the story as seen through Scott’s head, which Edgar Wright was repeatedly attested through in interviews. The movie is a commentary on how the video-game culture he surrounds himself with has made him self-centered and caused him to treat the woman around him–Ramona, Knives, Kim–like objects for him to win and anybody who stands in his way as an irredeemable villain. Because he objectifies both women and Ramona’s exes, it would make sense that he only thinks horrible, possibly sexist things about Roxie; if the joke is sexist, which I think is debatable, it reflects Scott’s sexism, not the filmmakers’. And even if it does, it takes up such an absolutely minimal amount of the movie that you can hardly condemn the entire film as sexist for it.

  • 33 8-15-2010 at 10:04 pm

    Adam Smith said...

    I think that each fight either reveals something important about Scott’s personality/psyche, such as his fear of things that are new/strange/foreign (Matthew Patel), or teaches him something about himself and the values he will hold as an adult (the fight with the twins shows that he needs/relies on his friends to help him overcome obstacles, a support system he will no longer have if he continues to alienate them). The fight with Roxie reveals a lot of things. For one, it exposes Scott’s childish double standard about lesbians (and, in a way, his problems with women in general): he likes the idea of lesbians in theory, but being confronted with it scares him (much like how he is more in love with the mystery, the aura, the IDEA of Ramona, than with the actual person). He also is confronted with his inherent weakness up against Ramona (Scott can’t fight Roxie himself and lets Ramona carry him), as well as the startling idea that he and Ramona might not be as compatible as he thought (compare Ramona’s awkward, clumsy puppetry with Scott and Knives’ perfectly synced pummeling of Gideon). As for Roxie’s death, for the sake of argument, let’s consider this: Scott is seeing a person (not just a woman) killed by an orgasm. It might be a stretch, but this could be revealing to Scott that his overwhelming interest in sex (and women as sex objects) without real love or connection will ultimately destroy him.

  • 34 8-15-2010 at 10:32 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    A good piece, re: the perceived sexism of the film:

    http://www.theawl.com/2010/08/scott-pilgrim-versus-itself

  • 35 8-16-2010 at 6:20 am

    Glenn said...

    But Roxy dies in a completely different way in the film to the comic. Seems so strange to change from her being beaten in battle in some sort of honourable way that could show her as resourceful and powerful but, alas, beaten by a better fighter, to make it so that she dies at the hand of sex.

    And Scott’s sister loses two boyfriends to Wallace. When she sees Wallace and her current bf kissing she says “again?” That being said, the film’s treatment of homosexuality was one of its brightest points. Scott sees two guys kissing and, lo and behold, doesn’t go “ew” (or some variation on that). I like Adam’s theory about Scott’s perception of lesbianism, but it still doesn’t change the fact that Roxy’s gender and her sexuality were used against her in a way that nobody elses was. She died because she had a weakness related to her gender. The movie would never have done that for a male character (even one as thankfully nonchalant about homosexuality as this one). It’s as simple as that (as I see it, anyway).

    Jack, whether a specific plot point/strand/whatever takes up 1%, 10% or 86% of the running time doesn’t change that it’s there in the first place. Kendrick was one of my very favourites in the movie – only Culkin and maybe Wong were better – but she’s hardly written here in the movie as a particularly strong woman. There’s a lot to her – the younger sister who is more mature, etc – but it’s not there in the film.

    But in regards to Ramona again, she is another who may indeed be a complex woman but it’s not shown here in the film. It is simply not there. Everytime we see Ramona she is there merely to be a catalyst for the next fight scene. Why DOES Scott keep fighting these evil exes for her? WHY. She may be multilayered, but there isn’t all that much (that I remember, anyway) that shows her as being so and whatever of it I saw it wasn’t shown until the very end (during her speech about why she moved and so forth). Her biggest personality traits in the majority of the film are changing her hair colour every week and a half and having evil exes.

    Kris’ link is a good one.

  • 36 8-16-2010 at 7:47 am

    Megan said...

    I was drinking the hate Kool-Aid all along for this film, but gave it an honest shot with my sibs over the weekend. Unfortunately, I really disliked it.

    It was a noisy, repetetive, messily edited movie for the ADD generation rife with shallow, irritating, flat-out unlikeable characters, save perhaps for Culkin’s hilarious but nuanced gay roommate character.

    SP seemed to deem itself edgy and clever as an excuse for its sloppy, dizzying end result. I felt like I was watching a mess unravel before my eyes.

    And a woman coming by way of a touch to the back of the knee; Boy, I’m sure gentlemen would love it if it were that easy. But I digress…

  • 37 8-16-2010 at 8:30 am

    Kyle said...

    Sweet soundtrack, I went and bought it. Gotta love a little Beck and Broken Social Scene every now and again.

  • 38 8-16-2010 at 8:56 am

    qwiggles said...

    I think the Awl piece is kind of lazy: plenty of sexism in the comics and in the concept itself. His most important point seems to be that in the comics, Scott actually beat up a defenseless Simon, making him not a hero but a bully. What does this have to do with Kim? Isn’t this still all about a dude? Sounds like it.

    “Ramona only comes back to Scott after she figures this out, and together they can defeat impediments to their mutual happiness.”
    This seems to me the same wishy washy ending Wright has provided: Ramona disappears during one fight then returns, saying, “I do that sometimes”; Scott has to convince Ramona at last to let him follow her through that door she always walks through. In fact, there’s a bit more agency for Ramona in this version, insofar as she’s going through that door whether he follows or not. Neither version is very kind to her, but I thought Wright’s had more grace.

    “The triumph at the end of the series is less that Scott and Ramona have defeated the final boss than that they have both seen these illusions as illusions (rendered in pixel art and textese) and are able to face each other as full, flawed human beings.”

    Same deal in the movie: note the clever conceit of having Ramona’s ex tales depicted as flattened versions of Bryan Lee O’Malley comics, and that Scott’s equal parts self-aggrandizing/deflated spiel about dating Kim still gets recited as if it were a comic battle. Re: the former, these flattened memories appear in the examples you see in the article as 8-bit dating adventures; Wright has gone a step farther and said comics themselves are like 8-bit versions of memories. Kinda ballsy, given the source! The film also identifies the battle conceit as something these people do to avoid facing actual memories of what happened, though to give the author credit, Ramona definitely has a less involved part than in the books.

    Anyway, the argument overall seems to be: the comics are richer and more idiosyncratic. Yes. They are also independent books in 6 installments, many of them bloated, which Wright must compress to 112 minutes in a very expensive movie that must appeal to people who haven’t followed these characters for years. The Awl guy acknowledges that this is inevitable, but his beef still seems to lie with an inherent fact of adaptation: 2 hour movies are flatter at details than 800 pages of text. Yes. And?

  • 39 8-16-2010 at 1:37 pm

    Jack said...

    The problem with Roxie’s death in the comic, though, is that she’s killed by Knives Chau’s father, or, at least, during a fight with him. It’s the climax of a subplot that’s only in book four and isn’t mentioned again for the rest of the series. To keep that death, the filmmakers would have had to jam in another character and subplot that would only be present for about one-sixth of the movie, and the movie is full enough with plot as it is. And the joke about defeating a woman by touching the back of her knees is in the book–in volume three, Ramona fights Envy Adams and uses Scott’s suggestion to touch the back of her knees (although she faints instead of dying through orgasm). So the filmmakers didn’t make it up; they just took it from somewhere else. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the joke isn’t sexist, but it’s not just Edgar Wright’s fault. And I also don’t think you can say that the filmmakers wouldn’t have used it with a male character–all of the other fights have so much else going on (like the veganism or the stunt doubles or the Demon Hipster Chicks) that setting up the orgasm joke would have been too much.

    And yeah, I totally forgot that Stacey says “Again,” sorry about that. But I think it’s making fun of Wallace’s predatory behavior, not Stacey’s choice in men, and I still don’t see how it makes Stacey a weak female character or make her depiction sexist. And she might not be an overwhelmingly strong person, but she’s a strong female character, at least in the sense that she is smart, mature, morally grounded, and plausible as a real person, and has a reasonably significant role in the movie not defined by a romantic relationship. As for Ramona, you might have a point–my judgment of her character could be a little colored by my knowledge of the books–but I don’t think you’re giving her enough credit. She might not be, say, Anna Karenina or Lady Macbeth, but unlike most Manic Pixie Dream Girls, she has a tangible and realistic personality that isn’t over-the-top clichéd (at least, I thought so) and is a clearly flawed and human person: I like, for example, how the filmmakers compare her relationship with Scott to his with Knives; she uses him as someone uncomplicated and steady.
    But my main problem with your argument is your calling the movie itself sexist, because even if you’re individual points are correct, they’re still not enough for such a total judgment. I think you need to view movies holistically–for example, I think that some lines of dialogue in Inception are a little clunky, but that the movie as a whole was brilliantly written, and that some moments in Casablanca are a little dated, even if the movie itself holds up. (That was the point I was trying to make with the 1% thing–not that because the joke is small, it’s excusable, but that because it’s small, it shouldn’t damn the entire movie.) To me, a sexist movie is one that constantly and consistently has a negative portrayal of women–either as manipulative jerks or air-headed bimbos; women whose purpose is solely defined by their value to the men as romantic or sexual partners, or lack thereof. It’s not a movie with some female characters that might be under-drawn or under-used, especially if there are still other strong ones, including the most likeable character in the movie (Knives), and one joke that’s so over-the-top and goofy that it’s being a little silly to take it seriously (especially if that joke comes from the character’s view of women, not the filmmakers’). “Transformers 2” and “Jersey Shore” are sexist, for example, because their view of women affects every woman character every time she’s on screen and is blatantly offensive. I can understand how the orgasm joke offended you, but I don’t think that’s enough of a reason to call Scott Pilgirm a sexist movie.

  • 40 8-16-2010 at 5:22 pm

    Kevin K. said...

    What Jack said. A thousand times what Jack said.

  • 41 8-16-2010 at 8:22 pm

    Glenn said...

    In the grand scheme of things Scott’s sister isn’t much of a character in a positive or negative way (although Kendrick is fabulous), and the whole loses-her-boyfriend-to-wallace thing was just to point out how strangely her character is written in the film. I don’t think the sister character is sexist, just poorly written. It’s the Roxy/Ramona stuff where my sexism debate really comes in.

    Along with all of the stuff I’ve already said about Roxy, it’s strange that Scott thinks Ramona is the flighty one (oh no she changes her hair colour) and that her life is a hindrance on him (as evidenced during their tiff before the Roxy fight at the nightclub) when, really, she is the one who could do so much better (as evidenced by, basically, all of the evil exes – hello Chris Evans).

    :)

  • 42 8-16-2010 at 11:01 pm

    Speaking English said...

    The people at SoundWorks have a feature on “Scott Pilgrim” now, highlighting what I think is some of the best sound design of the year. Just letting you know.

  • 43 8-17-2010 at 4:57 am

    Kyle said...

    But Glenn, that’s the whole point…SPOILERS

    it’s Scott that has to change, not Ramona…Scott realizes that he’s having to fight the evil exes for himself and gaining his own self-respect in the process. Without said quality, it was the reason (or one of the reasons) why his relationship with Kim, Envy all went sour, and why he was dating an underager in Knives.
    In short, the point you bring up, is the whole point of Scott’s character arc.

  • 44 8-17-2010 at 1:29 pm

    Fitz said...

    Maybe you both should have put up SPOILERS several posts before this one. Thanks.

  • 45 8-17-2010 at 1:44 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    What are you doing lurking a “what did you think about Scott Pilgrim” thread if you’re wary of spoilers?

  • 46 8-17-2010 at 2:26 pm

    Kyle said...

    Hey, arguably, I never stated one spoiler in any post I listed prior to now, but that was just me…but you’re right Kris…I’ll chalk it up to early morning posting and not knowing better :)

  • 47 8-17-2010 at 9:19 pm

    Jack said...

    Glen–

    I disagree about Kendrick’s character: It’s not an overwhelmingly profound characterization, but it’s developed and real enough for the size of the role in the movie. And like I said, I think the joke with her losing her boyfriend is only really supposed to show something about Wallace’s character and not reflect on her at all. But either way, any role that gets Anna Kendrick more work is good enough for me. :)

    And your point about Scott and Ramona is interesting. I think part of it is a reflection on how distorted Scott’s view of reality is, but Kyle has a good point–Scott’s resentment of Ramona in that scene and the ones around it is, I think, more of a resentment towards the relationship itself. It’s the first time that Scott has been forced to actually fight for something (pun…not intended?) and prove himself, and that scares and frustrates him. If the whole movie’s a metaphor for the way we deal with our past baggage and our own flaws when we enter a new relationship, then that part of Scott’s arc could show how some people are so daunted by that task that they decide it isn’t worth it and quit instead of dealing with their problems, or something along those lines.

  • 48 11-13-2010 at 4:58 pm

    Chad Hartigan said...

    I just saw this and thought it was okay. Really interesting set up and characters but then my heart sank when the first fight broke out. I had momentarily forgot that’s what the film was really about and dreaded having to watch six more boring altercations.