Scott Pilgrim: Good, also: Not Sexist

I'm late, because of the new job, but still!, I got something to get off my chest. I'm not angry, just not so sure what all the fuss is about with Scott Pilgrim.

I saw the movie a week or two ago, at a non-franchise theatre because it was no longer playing in any major theatre in my city for whatever reason. I went in with some serious trepidation. SP had been getting some mediocre reviews, and many critics had taken issue with the whole women as objects to be won thing. First the vote, then they want to be treated like people in cinema. Which actually strikes me as funny because this issue doesn't come up when almost every other film centers on a male character fighting for a woman whom improves his life/solves all his personal issues. But whatever.

I watched the lil' fucker though and I came out damn impressed. My favourite movie of the year impressed. I saw multiple articles on the possible reasons for its failure, and I can see the whole, a movie for hipsters thing issue. The movie is for people that are nostalgic for 8-bit, and who are also twenty something. I'm sorry, but that is not a real demographic outside of nerds and hipsters.

I saw some people posting on boards that the movie isn't about hipsters because it makes fun of hipsters. You know what is the favourite past times of hipsters? Making fun of other hipsters. ESPECIALLY scene kids. This movie is for and about hipsters.

Okay, so I get that this is a small audience, and so this probably didn't help the movie's numbers at all. I mean, when I was watching the trailers for this movie, it looked like it was going to be fantastic and I couldn't imagine anyone not wanting to see this film. I guess that's because it was made for me. Too bad I don't have more friends. Who cares though, this movie will get lots of love on DVD and its not like Edgar Wright is going to stop making movies.

Another issue is the backlash against Cera. I can't speak to this issue because I'm an ardent defender of the boy and I only wish he was in better films. Yes, he often plays similar characters, as does Bill Murray, George Clooney, and for heaven's sake Robert Fucking DeNiro. But I digress. I think he plays a different character in SP. A teenager who is over-confident, weak, and a bit of a prick, instead of just the nervous, shy, and all around nice boy around the corner who has a crush on his cousin, maybe. But that doesn't matter, ppls is haters. But check out Youth in Revolt if you want to see some funny non-Michael-Cera-ish Michael Cera.

But, onto the women thing. Some critics took issue with how the film sets up Scott Pilgrim as the boy that finds a girl that fixes his world and that he has to fight to obtain. From the appearance of the film, that would seem to be the structure of the plot, and indeed a fear that I went to the theatre with, but one however that is severely complicated by the actual film. Both Romana and Knives are strong female characters, with Romana in particular with a complicated past that makes her getting together with Pilgrim more complex than a forever-after (in the rom-com sense) ending. They have complicated pasts and those interfere with the relationship.

Indeed, the film is, in some sense, in some slight spoilery sense, a movie about the problems of past relationships on new ones, and the troubles of becoming a person outside of those, in this case, past mistakes, and really about entering into relationships that are automatically complicated by the unavoidable baggage that everyone comes burdened with. SP just handles these complex issues in terms of videogame fight sequences. Metaphors people! Metaphors.

Screw it all though. SP is a movie made for me, and I enjoyed the shit out of it. I think if you like Wright's previous films, or if you have a fond spot in your heart for classic games but you still consider yourself a younger member of your society, you'll probably like this movie as well. And if you don't, then this movie wasn't for you.

I'm trying to actually place the reference for that reference. This movie wasn't for you. I think someone said something douchey like that once to excuse his or her shitty artistry. Hmm.

Truck, truck, truck!

The Switch, Funniest Rape-Com of the Year

At least I suspect it is, I haven't done much research into the area *pulls collar away from neck and makes comedy noise*, but let's go ahead and say it's a valid claim.

So, Meg and I were waiting for a movie with a friend, bitching about whatever us MA lit-students bitch about (Mexicans), casually glancing at the multitude of TVs scattered throughout the lobby playing the same cycle of seven trailers interspersed with Skittles commercials ("blue is back!"), when our friend asks Meg, "do you think this is rape?" gesturing at the screen. We watched:

Did you catch the rape? Neither did I at first, but Meg thinks about it for a second and says "yes.". The issue is essentially: Anniston plans to get pregnant and Bateman spills the sample from the man she had actually selected and then, just as a quick and easy solution because what's it really matter, fills the thinger with his own *ahem* sample. He essentially inseminates her without her knowledge/consent."

At first I didn't buy it. Rape is violent and physical. The dude may be a dumb douche for doing what he does, but that doesn't mean he rapes her... does it? This is just some neo-feminist poppycock construing this bad thing as the extreme worst as a necessity of its politics-ideology... right?

But it is rape. He impregnates her without consent. While it may not be the violent form of rape we all know and abhor, it certainly falls under the same category. And what's strange, is that this movie uses this sort of thing casually, as a madcap rom-com premise. It's like if the setup was Bateman killing Aniston's mother, and through the investigation their initial antagonistic relationship blossoms into Hollywood love. I just don't get it.

I haven't seen the movie, and I probably won't, so maybe I'm wrong and the film deals with the severity of the issue, but from the trailer it looks like a typical rom-com. My projected plot is the initial "switch", then flash forward to when the kid's older and Bateman meets the kid and feels like he wants to be a part of his life. Then, when the Anniston finally finds out, she's pissed but eventually gets over it because she loves her son so much and wouldn't want him to be any different. This would and be how she falls in love with Bateman, she would recognize the qualities she sees in her son in Bateman (like the apparent ability to think quick on his feet).

I seriously don't know why either Bateman or Goldbloom are in this stupid movie. I do expect better of both of them. I mean there are paydays and then there are bad movie concepts, and this is the exemplar of the latter.

I just hope my titular prediction is correct and that I'm not forced to swallow my words when Sam Worthington and Katherine Heigl star in Once Upon a Time in a Dark Alley.

Co-starring Zach Galifianakis and Queen Latifah.

Hot Tub Time Machine v. Casual Sexism

So, Hot Tub Time Machine. I first heard about this movie on /Film, when all that was knew about the film was the name of the film (and subsequently a little about what the film was about) and who was in it. The title alone had my interest, the shear absurdity of the main conceit tickled me, and the pedigree in terms of casting helped a lot. High Fidelity is a favourite for me, so I knew John Cusack could do comedy, Rob Corddry was always decent, if not charismatic, on the Daily Show, Craig Robinson gets some of the best jokes in The Daily Show, and Clarke Duke was great in the relatively unknown (web?) series Clark and Michael. Long sentence though it may be, I was pretty stoked for the movie.

Is stoked, a word, out of vogue? Is it just a stoner thing now? Sometimes I worry my vocabulary is full on lexical hipster-anachronisms. Full review/rant after the jump.