bobscott
Joined Dec 1999
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews16
bobscott's rating
For starters, I'll say that I have read the first few graphic novels in the Scott Pilgrim series by Bryan Lee O'Malley and had seen a couple of trailers, so I thought that I had some idea what to expect as I went to a pre-release screening in Omaha. Still, my expectations were blown away. To bring such content to the big screen from a graphic novel is always a challenge, and with the content being so video-game centric, perhaps even more so. However, Edgar Wright clearly overcame the challenge with great casting, good pacing, and what I can only call appropriate special effects.
From the appearance of the Universal logo and music at the beginning all the way to the end (well, the start of the credits, at least), I found the movie an incredibly fun experience, with many laughs at sight gags, one-liners, and the random geekery that the people who made the film obviously knew that their target audience would be looking for. Additionally, a good soundtrack surrounds much of the on-screen action.
I know that there are people who just think that Michael Cera is the worst thing since unsliced bread, and these are people who should clearly avoid this film for the sole reason that it contains Michael Cera. I think he works well in this role. There are times where the actor can make or break a film, but I don't see Cera breaking this film.
Scott Pilgrim probably won't be breaking any box office records, but I'd like to think that word of mouth can help this film get the attention it deserves from the audiences that would most appreciate it, which would be those who enjoy classic video game culture and the interesting characters in this film who live in a world which many a Nintendo Power subscriber could only dream of.
Just don't go in thinking you're going to see Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, as you'll likely be disappointed. This is a very different film, but I would say that it's trying to have as much fun as either of Wright's other two most popular films.
From the appearance of the Universal logo and music at the beginning all the way to the end (well, the start of the credits, at least), I found the movie an incredibly fun experience, with many laughs at sight gags, one-liners, and the random geekery that the people who made the film obviously knew that their target audience would be looking for. Additionally, a good soundtrack surrounds much of the on-screen action.
I know that there are people who just think that Michael Cera is the worst thing since unsliced bread, and these are people who should clearly avoid this film for the sole reason that it contains Michael Cera. I think he works well in this role. There are times where the actor can make or break a film, but I don't see Cera breaking this film.
Scott Pilgrim probably won't be breaking any box office records, but I'd like to think that word of mouth can help this film get the attention it deserves from the audiences that would most appreciate it, which would be those who enjoy classic video game culture and the interesting characters in this film who live in a world which many a Nintendo Power subscriber could only dream of.
Just don't go in thinking you're going to see Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, as you'll likely be disappointed. This is a very different film, but I would say that it's trying to have as much fun as either of Wright's other two most popular films.
Being a fan of NPR's "This American Life" for so many years, I couldn't wait to see this show from the moment I heard about it. Just like the radio show, the television series finds fascination in the mundane, tells the stories that might otherwise never be told. And with each story, perhaps, you might gain a little insight into what makes different people tick.
Ira Glass's narration is always just enough, never overbearing, and the presentation is visually very artistic. The soundtrack accompanying the narration and interviews is just as fitting as it is on the radio show, and it really just makes a great transition from radio to television.
If you enjoy creative documentary-style storytelling, this is certainly a show you'll enjoy.
Ira Glass's narration is always just enough, never overbearing, and the presentation is visually very artistic. The soundtrack accompanying the narration and interviews is just as fitting as it is on the radio show, and it really just makes a great transition from radio to television.
If you enjoy creative documentary-style storytelling, this is certainly a show you'll enjoy.
See the door? If this movie is on in your vicinity, perhaps now would be a good time to open the door, step outside, and close the door, making sure it's locked behind you. It's just that bad. It's even worse than another François Ozon film I've seen called "Water Drops on Burning Rocks."
At 50 minutes, this film is excruciating. Some may call it a brilliant art film, but to call it a film is to simply say that anything that IS filmed can be considered a movie. Which is true, to some extent, but that is far from saying that everything on film is a something that people would like to see.
The concept of this film seems to be one of "Oh boy, cynicism!" The characters are empty glasses at the start, filled a bit with their actions, only to be emptied again at various points so that completely unbelievable things can occur. And these unbelievable things... They advance the plot, right? Nope! They're just thrown in there to remind us all that the world is a horrible place and everyone in it is potentially going to despoil your like-new toothbrush and perhaps do a few other things that aren't very nice for no particular reason.
This is a film that asks the audience to draw their own conclusions, I suppose. But when all is said and done, what conclusions can even be drawn from it? Not many, and those few that can be drawn aren't too remarkable. This is an empty film. Out of a 10, I give it a 2.
At 50 minutes, this film is excruciating. Some may call it a brilliant art film, but to call it a film is to simply say that anything that IS filmed can be considered a movie. Which is true, to some extent, but that is far from saying that everything on film is a something that people would like to see.
The concept of this film seems to be one of "Oh boy, cynicism!" The characters are empty glasses at the start, filled a bit with their actions, only to be emptied again at various points so that completely unbelievable things can occur. And these unbelievable things... They advance the plot, right? Nope! They're just thrown in there to remind us all that the world is a horrible place and everyone in it is potentially going to despoil your like-new toothbrush and perhaps do a few other things that aren't very nice for no particular reason.
This is a film that asks the audience to draw their own conclusions, I suppose. But when all is said and done, what conclusions can even be drawn from it? Not many, and those few that can be drawn aren't too remarkable. This is an empty film. Out of a 10, I give it a 2.