Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs the World

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Dir: Edgar Wright

To describe Scott Pilgrim vs the World is to define the word “Allegory”, so I won't. I'll just assume you know it or at least have access to a dictionary. What I will do instead is explain why it is one of the best movies I have ever seen. No... that won't work either, because it would take too little space and I want this review to span some time. I might as well get it out of the way though, so... Scott Pilgrim vs the World is one of the best movies I have ever seen because it is very cool. See, didn't take much time at all. Damn! How should I go about doing this?? I just saw the movie a few minutes ago, so it hasn't even sunk in... I think I should just... oh, wait... its coming to me... I almost... AH. There it is.

To watch the trailer for this movie... the myriad of trailers I should say, sadly opens the door much to wide for this movie, and I went into it knowing much more than I wished I had. It is a movie that opens doors, which just so happens to be one of the many allegorical points within this revelationary and revolutionary film. I went to the film knowing it would be filled to overflowing with pop-culture Now-ness. I went in knowing it was based on a comic book and would display scenes with a comic book flair. I went in knowing it was going to use the language of this new millennium, with all of its thought and culture and attitude. Once in a while a movie defines a generation, and from the trailers I knew Scott Pilgrim vs the World would be the next defining film. I exited the film knowing the trailers had said too much, sad that they revealed more than necessary, wishing this film had been allowed to stand on its own merits. Really, the marketing strategy is the only beef I have with this piece of art.

The film is about a young man of this, til now undefined yet distinct generation. He falls in love with a woman of this undefined yet distinct generation. They both have baggage that must be sorted through before they can come together fully. In this, the movie tells a story that is ancient. How it is told, however, deftly defines this generation.

Scott Pilgrim is played by Michael Cera, who has settled himself into the everyman role with grace, characteristic unease, and comedic timing that is unrivaled. Scott is in a band, who are on the verge of becoming really good. He falls for a woman, played by the mysterious Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who has a “League of Evil Ex's” out to destroy her newest love interest. Scott ends up facing each member of Ramona's past dalliances, overcoming her baggage, winning her heart, and finding his self-respect along the way. The way it is told combines all the pop-culture that is at the heart of this new millennium, from super-hero, Manga-style super-powers to text messaging, video games, and shifting hair-styles. The screen is filled with fight-scenes taken straight from comics, sound effects that ping and pop as video games are wont to do, and a driving musical score that should win an Oscar and a Grammy and a million downloads from itunes. The characters are crisp and indifferent while being sincere and supportive. Scott is both weak and powerful, broken and conquering, clever and dumb as a bag of hammers.

I watched the film enjoying the many on-screen video-game references spell out the underlying social commentary with a huge smile on my face. Using a medium that is at once shallow and vapid to define the tumultuous undercurrents of social interplay is nothing short of genius; and though it is pervasive the director somehow keeps it as backdrop to the story. Even when the fight-scenes break out and the screen is filled with swords and level-up counters, the message and heart of the story somehow stays in the foreground.

Scott Pilgrim is just another generational film, and we have seen those before. From “Hard Days Night”, “Easy Rider” and “Ferris Bueller's Day Off” to “Empire Records” and “Napoleon Dynamite” we have seen the declarations of the current generation be spelled out in the language of the times. Scott Pilgrim is no different. Oh, it is very different, don't get me wrong, it is just also the same. It won't work for the people who don't understand the language, but that is also why it works. It knows the language, speaks it with the proper diction of the times, using the inflection of a generation to retell a story that will always transcend the ages. It pwns noobs and leets alike while showcasing bff's, and lvl-ups the hero til he rescues both himself and the princess from the final boss.

My suggestion is to watch it with your kids so they can translate.

Movie Review: Lords of Dogtown

Movie Review: Lords of Dogtown
Dir: Catherine Hardwicke

I will never forget the shark-like shape of the board, and the huge rubber wheels. In my hometown in Oregon there was a bit of a hill rising up through the neighborhood, up to the grade-school. And at the end of the sloping sidewalk were a couple of steps leading to the main road. It was Sunday, summer, and the streets were empty like the school. Gray clouds scowled down on the sleepy little town, on me and my red skateboard. I placed it on the concrete, struggling to keep it steady, like some rambunctious colt under my hands til I could sit down on it. And with a shove I was off, rolling down the slope of that cement runway. And when I reached the steps... I was airborne! It was glorious, it was magical, it was difficult keeping the board under me. And when I landed the board shot out like a rocket, leaving me to land on the rough pavement of the street. Luckily the ridges of my spine acted as a series of brakes, and I skidded to a halt well short of the Pacific ocean, which looked to be my inevitable destination. A stranger walking by saw the whole thing and asked “Whoa, you OK, kid?” I don't think I answered him, instead opting to run home crying from my injuries. The scars are faded now, but still barely visable.

“Lords of Dogtown” is a period-piece taking place somewhere near the same time as my own incident, in the middle 70's. The subjects of the film were much more proficient at skateboarding than I was. In fact, they are considered the originators of the punk-skateboarder lifestyle born out of Venice, California. They were also the fiery heralds of the skateboarding sport, introducing a new style and level of expertise that serve as inspiration for the house-hold names you know today, such as Tony Hawk. The movie follows the lives of a group of kids, particularly 3 boys, played by John Robinson, Emile Hirsch, Julio Oscar Mechoso. These fresh young faces were perfectly cast in their respective roles, playing the rigid perfectionist, the troubled rebel, and the self-absorbed protege with skill and nuance. The film also showcases Heath Ledger as their self-serving original sponsor, who gives focus to their talents, but lacks the business sense to profit from it. It follows the group as they grow from members of surfer gangs to world-traveling skate-boarding sports stars, and highlights the hurdles life interjects along the way.

The script is solid, the acting sublime, and the direction well done. Where the film shines, however, is in the art direction. Many period pieces lose sight of the period, interjecting language or anachronistic flubs that simply don't fit. Open up a film in Elizabethan England and you run the risk of using dialect that simply didn't exist, or turns of phrase that hadn't been invented yet. “Lords of Dogtown” doesn't have as much difficulty, since it originally took place in recent memory. But that doesn't mean attention to detail didn't occur. As a culture we understand that “Melons” and “Fakies” and grinds and hand-plants all exist, and many of us can differentiate the various tricks by name. But this story takes place before those tricks were conceived... before ANY tricks were conceived. Tricks on a skateboard were like... juggling while skating, or riding two boards at once. These kids, in this moment of time, changed the game from something shown on the Tonight Show to something worthy of validation as an Olympic level sport. The movie recognizes these embryonic moments, and embraces them. The tricks, by today's standards, are not flashy and impressive. Yet they are held in reverence. When the heroes man their skateboards, mass-produced plastic things with huge vinyl wheels and ball-bearings that sound like a swarm of bees, they look and act like 70's era amateur skateboarders.

I enjoyed the story, which is a coming of age tale with moments given special credence to pace an engaging turn of events. And I enjoyed the acting by these new-comers who fit the roles so well. What I enjoyed the most, though, was regressing back to a time when things weren't simpler, only different. A time when so much of what we take for granted now was inconceivable then. It was fun to watch the birth of something that changed the world as we know it. I liked “Lords of Dogtown”, not because it is a great movie or deserves awards. I liked it because it carried me back to a poignant moment time, successfully and without approbation.

Movie Review: Quest for Fire

Movie Review: Quest for Fire
Dir: Jean-Jacques Annuad

When I was a kid, 12 years old and just figuring out that a woman's breasts were pretty awesome, I discovered that HBO showed all the rated R movies late at night when my parents were conveniently asleep. The first pornographic film clip I recall ever seeing is the first 10 minutes of “Quest for Fire”, when, as the women of the tribe are down at the stream drinking hand-scooped water while down on all fours, a rather frisky member of the tribe sneaks up behind her and enjoys a heart-felt moment. It was wonderfully decadent to my young eyes, when nothing beat a smuggled copy of National Geographic for its revelation of Africa's relaxed dress-code.

It's been nearly 30 years since I watched those first few minutes of “Quest for Fire”, and when I discovered it available on Netflix recently I realized I had never seen it beyond those first first scenes. What I discovered is a rich movie filled with brilliant concepts and acting. The story is a simply one, a quest to reclaim a spark of fire for a tribe of human's too primitive, too lacking in technological thought, to produce it artificially. There is no discernible language, and thus no subtitles, which seems odd for a Hollywood film. But the director trusts his audience, and uses gibberish and grunts and pantomime and stereotypical caveman-speak to tell his story. Sometimes it seems a bit silly, but for the most-part I am able to suspend my modern-day conventions and accept the device for what it is; a way to tell the story that requires my acceptance and involvement. I have to accept language was just beginning to take shape, that instinct was king and inventive thought was fringe. And the director carries this torch through every aspect of the film. The fight scenes are full of posturing and clumsy spear-play. Wounded tribesmen aren't bandaged up. Humor, sex and survival are all rough and a painful. And none of it is sexy.

Except Rae Dawn Chong. Her chatter permeates the film, even as Everett McGill's silent contemplativeness acts as our default narration. And even past the mud and body-paint, she is a charmer. Ron Perlman and Nicholas Kadi round out the members of the quest, and never overstate their roles as simple companions. They all hunker about, picking at bugs and acting like chimps, but McGill is the visionary of the tribe. There is a spark of intelligence under his pronounced brow, a philosophical depth behind the deep-set eyes. He doesn't just notice there is a world larger than himself, but also wonders about it. His isn't the cleverness of discovery, but the appreciation of need and application; he is the visionary.

“Quest for Fire” has moments that could be campy, but they are not allowed to be. Our first reaction might be to laugh at a corny moment, but it is never allowed to stop with that moment. Each flows into a rationale that reminds us to lose our preconceptions and accept the tools being used to tell the story. Early in the film the tribe is attacked by savages, less evolved and more brutish. There is a lot of posturing and whooping and weapons raising, but very little combat. When the combat does come it is clumsy and awkward, a reminder that there would not be any martial talent yet. Spears aren't thrown because then you don't have a weapon anymore. Nobody runs up to attack, because they don't want to get hurt. Wounds are scratches and abrasions, not crudely carved spears through the heart. There was a thread to realism underscoring the movie, of supposition that works because it is pervasive and complete. It isn't campy, because it doesn't revert to something more believable. It is acceptable, because it accepts itself without reservation or excuse.

I enjoyed the movie, because it this fact. I found myself drawn into a the story, caring about the trials of the characters, and accepting their images as presented to me. I don't know if primitive man walked like a baboon everywhere and fucked like rabbits, and with as little emotion. I accepted it as presented, though, and enjoyed the tale through this filter. A tell well told, interesting and satisfying.

I think that, like the movie “Chariots of Fire”, “Quest for Fire” is a masterpiece that will withstand the test of time. I also think it is easily forgettable, because it doesn't offer enough that is obviously epic. There is no quotable dialog, or revolutionary story ideas. It is just a story told in a unique fashion, artistically true to itself. That alone makes it art worth experiencing. But it is an entertaining tale, as well, with great performances and good direction.

Movie Review: Inception

Movie Review: Inception
Dir: Christopher Nolan

I went into “Inception” knowing it was an acclaimed film. There has been a lot of buzz around the movie already, only a couple weeks since its opening. At this moment Rottentomatoes.com has it listed at 87%, meaning 87% of the critics who are credible reviewers of the film liked it. One of the reasons I like sites such as this is that it takes a wide-angle shot of the viewing community. It is by no means a truly accurate gauge, because whether or not a person likes a particular film is all a matter of conjecture and individual taste. For instance, I loved “The 13th Warrior” and list it as one of my favorite films, but Rotten Tomatoes has it ranked at 33%. Conversely, I fell asleep during “Public Enemies”, a movie rated at 68%. Nevertheless, I went into the theater knowing I was going to see a good movie, just how good remained to be seen.

What Chris Nolan has done is challenge the audience to follow the characters through a labyrinthine plot, and yet in a move that seems counter-intuitive in Hollywood, didn't wrap up the solution or lead us by the nose in the last fifteen minutes so we may understand what has really happened. Instead, we are left to piece it all together by ourselves, or with our companions over the water-cooler. It is as though Nolan respects me as a viewer, and knows I will look for the clues if I want to know more. I appreciate that perspective. I can name a couple films off the top of my head that, though they gained critical praise, didn't trust me to figure it out on my own; “Vanilla Sky”, “Fight Club”, and “6th Sense” only name three of the many. Don't get me wrong, I think each of those films were well made and fun to watch. And though they challenged me along the way, felt the need to ensure I got the message so they also explained it to me at the end, holding my hand like a small child and pointing out each of the clues I may have missed. “Inception” has tons of clues leading to a couple different potential alternate endings. For fear of spoiling the fun of discovering them yourself, I won't point out too many for you to notice. But the fact they exist, and weren't tied in a neat bow at the end, means Nolan trusts me to find the ending I like best. And I appreciate that.

I turned to my movie-going companion and remarked that Nolan found the Dream Cast when putting this film together. Dicapprio is a brilliant actor, and has successfully shed the stigma he incurred after “Titanic”, a movie he was also brilliant in, but his performance became trumped by pop-culture hype. He is joined by a cast that includes the people who ought to be considered 5 of today's top 10 A-List actors: Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy. Add to that the experience of Pete Postlewaite, Tom Berenger (in a surprise return) and Michael Caine and your round off an amazing list of talent. And they do a spectacular job, making each performance stand out individually.

But the real star of this movie is the script. I mentioned the plot was labyrinthine, and that is no exaggeration. In fact, from the clues I noticed, it is key to understanding the underlying story. Layers upon layers of depth. The movie is about stealing thoughts from dreams, and how the ultimate heist isn't a theft, but the implanting of an outside thought using highjacked dreams; the Inception. To do this, you must trick the recipient in the dream world using a confidence game that makes use of dreams within dreams, layered like a wedding cake, to ensure the subject doesn't reject the implanted thought as alien in origin. A separate con-game exists on each of those layers, lovingly crafted with the staggeringly brilliant editing of the film, which carries us through those layers as they unfold; when the seconds of one are minutes in the next, and years in the next; yet all occure simultaneously. As convoluted as that may sound, it is seamlessly performed. Implanted along the way is the question, “Are we seeing what we think we are seeing?” Lost yet? You won't be, surprisingly, because it is perfectly executed. The clues aren't hidden too deep, nor are they obvious; they simply exist for you to acknowledge or glance over. You can watch the movie one time and see a brilliant story unfold, and then watch it again and see the story underneath. I am still pondering the possibility of a 3rd layer, as is hinted at in the movie, but I didn't see it first go around.

When I got home I hopped on the internet and, along with my viewing companion, began looking for clues using Wikipedia. Suddenly yet another aspect of the movie opened up to me. Like a puzzle-box with compartments inside compartments, this story has symbolism inside symbolism, clues hinting at deeper and deeper insights. I'll give you an obvious one, just to whet your appetite: Ellen Page's character is named Ariadne, who was, in Greek mythology, the daughter of King Minos who helped Theseus find his way through the Labyrinth of Crete. I'll also give you a less obvious one: Ken Watanabe's character is named Saito, and in Japanese history Saito Dosan was daimyo, or fuedal lord, of the Mino province. Coincidence? I doubt it. The entire script is just that intricately worked.

“Inception” was a pleasure to watch because it is a well made movie, with breathtaking special effects and acting that is unparalleled. But it is great because it is the work of craftsmen, true artists, who know their tools and trust their audience. Watch this movie with open eyes, so you can see the hidden easter-eggs and clues along the way. But don't forget to watch it because it is fun as well.

As I write this I am reading a reviewer who didn't like the movie. He wasn't impressed by the challenge the movie made to him, the challenge to explore the film beyond the layered story. This particular reviewer was bored by the depth, and ultimately resentful of each tool used to create said depth; from the visual effects to the pieces of symbolism present but not overtly explained. I realize from his conclusion that not only did he not get it, but he wasn't interested in trying to get it. And I equally realize there are people out there who will feel, as did this reviewer, that the film was to convoluted and difficult to be enjoyable. For you folks I say don't worry; Sylvester Stallone is making a new film to balance these scales.