Scott Pilgrim v The World

I'm not really sure where to start my review of Scott Pilgrim v The World. Commonly I start my reviews with either a plot synopsis or an anecdote about my evening at the cinema, but any plot synopsis for Scott Pilgrim seems so puerile when I think it out loud that I'm not sure I want to write it down (and I went to the cinema in Bracknell, so I have no anecdotes to tell). Here's an attempt at a plot synopsis: Scott Pilgrim is a bit of a nerdy guy who spots the girl of his dreams (literally) and is forced to battle her 7 evil exes in order to win her hand. Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?

It's not the kind of plot synopsis that would normally get me interested, but for two crucial points. Firstly, the film stars the fantastic Michael Cera as the lead. Secondly (and most crucial), it's directed by Edgar Wright. When Edgar Wright's on board you know that a film is going to go in a certain direction, you expect a script littered with geeky references and unconventionally directed with fast zooms, non-linear cuts and strange angles. It's the kind of directorial style that either grabs you or doesn't. When the film starts and the screen is filled with descriptions of Scott's flat and friends in caption format you either go with it or you don't. When a door bell rings and a massive RIIINNNGGG travels across the screen you either accept it or you don't. When we relentlessly cut between scene after scene of video-game-laden in jokes and midi music with a general disregard for standard linear structure you either go with it or you don't. I went with it, and I loved it.

The film is - in a similar way to Spaced - so unrealistic as to almost be set outside the normal world. Some examples then; Scott Pilgrim must battle against the '7 evil exes' of Romana Flowers if he is to be allowed to date her. Why? Don't know and don't care, don't ask such questions. No one ever asked why Bowser kidnapped the princess or why Mario has to jump on the heads of mushroom-like creatures to save her. When Scott defeats the first of the exes in one-on-one combat in the middle of one of his band's numerous punk renditions, he turns into a pile of coins and 'earns' 1000 points. Now if like me you grew up with Mario games and the like you'll probably find this hilarious, if not then you probably wont get it. Either way, set in the real world this film clearly isn't. Either way it also doesn't matter, Lord of the Rings is set in a fantasy world, so is the world of Scott Pilgrim. Be it a fantasy creation of the film's writers or one inside the deluded head of the main character, a fantasy it remains.

As enjoyable as I found the film with it's many references to video games culture, I have started to wonder if I perhaps only enjoyed it because of this. Is 'Scott Pilgrim' some kind of 'Sex and the City' for nerds, in that I only liked it because it's full of the nerdly equivalent of Gucci handbags and shopping for shoes - i.e. so crammed full of fanboy tropes that there's no time to sit back and spot the flaws. Only a day after seeing it I think it's too early to tell, and that a second viewing will help. I don't think I'm being bamboozled by the 8-bit music, Street Fighter style 'vs' battles and Scott's "leveling up" when he gets something, I'm fairly convinced that I'm enjoying a film about a genuinely endearing and charming character. However there are a few holes in the plot, such as there being no explanation whatsoever for Scott's sudden infatuation with Romana and very little of why she reciprocates (or in fact who she is at all - although she is more than just a prize for men to fight over as she gets to do some Tekken-esque martial arts herself).

Maybe I'm thinking about this too much. After all, the comic book visual style of the film is amazing and Edgar Wright certainly knows how to direct an action scene. Plus it's hugely funny, a moment where Scott stumbles into his flat causing his housemate to scream in vampiric agony "Turn off the light!" had me laughing for ages. Perhaps 'Scott Pilgrim v The World' is simply a brilliant video game geek fanboy genre movie, one that needs no further analysis. I think people will either enjoy the genre and get it or fail to see what the fuss is about and not. Personally I think it's great!

The A Team

I never really cared that much about TV as a kid. Friends of mine can sing the theme tunes to numerous CBBC cartoons and speak of memories of Grange Hill, Byker Grove, Gladiators and countless other standbys of being a child of the 1980s. Obviously I did watch some of these programs, but they were a passing fad for me, something that went in one ear and out of the other as a stop-gap between playing Lego or religiously learning the stations on the London Underground (I'm a geek, I know that already). The first television series I ever felt a real affinity to was the X Files, which wasn't released until I was 14. Looking back I have no real memory of the television shows that undoubtedly permeated my life as a child in the 1980s. As such, I find it difficult to look back upon television in this era with rose-tinted glasses.

The A Team is exactly one of the shows that I don't remember and probably never watched (and even if I had watched I probably wouldn't have cared about it) - and as such the existence of an A Team film holds no particular draw for me over and above the pantheon of other brain-rinsing macguffin-ridden action films. As far as I can tell it was a brainless baddie-of-the-week gunfest in which a band of ne'er-do-wells killed a bunch of faceless goons in the name of 'helping' someone. No one ever was seen getting shot, no one ever bled or got injured and the same old gags and plot devices were wheeled out every single week. Hannibal was the clever one, Face the ladies' man, Murdoch was crazy and BA was tough - and if I had a problem, if I could find them, maybe I could hire: THE A TEAM. 1980s Reaganist US foreign policy summed up in a television show, great.

Notwithstanding this, I shelled out my £5 (Orange Wednesday sadly) and sat through 110 minutes of explosions, muffled dialogue, terrible physics, improbable contraptions, telegraphed plots twists and cheesy one-liners. Yes it made no sense, of course Liam Neeson will have fired his agent as a result and obviously it was completely silly, but I found it all rather enjoyable - mainly because at no point did it ever feel like the people who made the film were expecting anyone to take it slightest bit seriously. As a result every action scene defies the laws of science, every bad guy is a 1 dimensional parody and Face's relationship with every woman on screen ensures a dramatic failure of the Bechdel Test - in short, this is an action film for kids.

Every so often it's nice to leave your brain at the ticket kiosk. If you're happy to do that then A-Team will probably be fairly enjoyable. The bloke sitting behind me who insisting on yelling out approval when a US fighter jet shot down a helicopter at the start certainly seemed to have checked his sanity in at the cinema entrance - the only valid excuse for ever behaving like that is being an American. Thankfully I was in the right kind of mood on Wednesday and so I enjoyed my cinema trip. Rest assured though that The A-Team will figure well outside the realms of film of the year come December.

The Shawshank Redemption - "I don't give a shit"

I thought about this scene last night while I was watching A Prophet. This is Red's final appearence in front of the parole panel at Shawshank prison. After appearing twice in front of the board after being in prison for 20 and then 30 years, and each time making a case for his own release, Red finally realises the futility of the life he led that sent him to prison and tells the board that he no longer cares.

This is an interesting moment in a great film. The mantra of the film is that 'hope can set you free', yet in an odd way it is Red's realisation that there is no hope for himself that brings him to be released from prison.

Anyway, I could listen to Morgan Freeman deliver monologues all day long, so enjoy!

Inception

After the months of hype, years of development and days of waiting to find another time to go to the cinema, I am mightily relieved to be able join the mass of bloggers who are united in the belief that Inception is a very good film. Just in case you've been living in a cave on Mars for the past few months, a plot synopsis: it is the near future and skilled technicians are able to enter the dreams of others, Leonardo DiCaprio is the best at this and is hired to plant an idea into the mind of a powerful businessman. Planting an idea (Inception) is thought to be impossible since the mark is always aware that the idea came from a character in a dream and not their own mind. DiCaprio says he can do it, and claims he has done it in the past, so assembles a crack team for the job.

This is a novel concept as far as I'm aware (I'm happy to be corrected) which opens up a pandora's box of possibilities for the special effects guys. Firstly, the majority of the film takes place in a variety of people's dreams. This means that virtually anything can happen at any time. Secondly, director Chris Nolan tells his story across several people dreams, many of which are buried in the dreams of another - which means that when things do happen, they are subject to entirely different rules to 'normal'. Nolan has come up with a whole set of rules which govern the laws of physics of dreams within dreams. So if a person is asleep and thrown around in one dream, then the world of the dreams they are having in that dream will shake and move around. And if a dream is happening inside another dream, time moves differently. Confused yet? Hopefully not, since the magic of the film is based around accepting these premises and the possibilities they reveal.

The plot involves the creation of 3 'levels' of dreams, in which the protagonists enter the dreams of their mark and generate further dreams within those dreams, each of which moves at a different rate and exists according to different rules. The theory is that by implanting an idea in the deepest of the dreams, the mark will fail to realise that the idea was not his own. Once you put this together it becomes clear why the consensus that ‘Inception’ is a film requiring that you pay attention, lest you lose track of your position in the worlds within worlds.

Cutting through the effects, the film is about the nature of reality and what anyone can be certain is 'real'. DiCaprio’s character wants to implant an idea of reality inside someone else's head, but while doing this he has to struggle with his own perception of reality and what is going on inside his own dreams. DiCaprio has a cryptic relationship with his wife and children, a relationship that has something to do with his work as a dream hacker in the past and means he can never return to the USA. His wife appears in his dreams and the dream of others while he inhabits them, her nature as either a figment of his subconcious, a phantom or an actual presence is a central mystery of the film. It’s a mystery which once revealed generates questions about the of all the film’s ‘realities’.

With the premise that it has, the viewer should expect to question film's presentation of reality at all times and perhaps be unsurprised when characters suddenly realise they are in dreams. The film's final scene is a beautiful moment; one which some may be frustrated by but one which no one can be surprised by given all that happens in the preceding 2 hours. A perfect ending that I will not spoil here.

The whole film has a tremendous soundtrack which is laced with pounding bass notes and booming noises. As we follow 4 concurrent dreams moving at different rates with different rules of physics the music builds up to a thrilling and adrenaline-busting pace. One scene in particular stands out, in which a fist fight takes place in a room where the direction of gravity is constantly shifting. The knowledge that this scene was filmed without the assistance of CGI makes it all the more impressive.

Inception really is arthouse-meets-blockbuster. The fact that a film as densely-layered and intense as this can succeed so strongly at the box office is testament to the fact that the film-going public are deserving of more respect than many (including myself) are often prepared to offer.

Inception is the kind of film that people are going to write essays and doctoral theses about. It's an intense and complex thriller in which the rules of physics have been re-written and the nature of reality is questioned at all times. It includes some amazing special effects, impressive performances (Cillian Murphy, Ellen Paige and Leonardo DiCaprio are all great) and a plot that we'll be discussing the meaning of for years to come. Inception is rightly destined to enter the pantheon of great science fiction films, I feel privileged that I was able to see it in the cinema while I had the chance.

Toy Story 3 - Is isn't Inception!

I went to the cinema with the intention of watching Inception last night. As has been the case on a couple of occasions recently, the queues at Winnersh Triangle Showcase were out the door and - for the first time I can remember - the film I wanted to see was sold out.

For this I blame a number of factors. Firstly, the world cup. The world cup has generated a backlog of blockbuster films which the distributors had been reluctant to release until the football was finished. A couple of weeks after the final and we now have a choice of all the films people would normally have been watching over the month of June. Secondly, Orange Wednesdays. Despite only ever having an Orange phone I have only recently started making use of the 2-for-1 offer they run on Wednesday. This was because in the past I was convinced that I would rather pay full price and have an enjoyable experience at the cinema than get a discount and have to fight against the texting chatting masses. I think that after last night I'm going to return to my previous opinion and avoid cinemas on Wednesdays altogether (apart from the Bracknell Odeon - which is relentlessly empty).

I commonly don't make use of 'offers' like the Orange Wednesdays (or Tesco Club Card points) because it is self-evident that the organisation providing such offers is making a return on them somewhere, and that consequently I am (or someone like me is) getting screwed at some point down the line. It has been pointed out to me that this might be something of a paranoid fantasy, but last night offers hard empirical evidence. By using the Orange Wednesday offer I joined the throng of humanity trying to get into the cinema on the cheap and ended up seeing a film that I probably otherwise would have waited for on DVD. Since I am definitely going to see Inception in the cinema at some point the net result is that Showcase cinema has squeezed money out of me. Even if I had arrived at the cinema earlier and got into see Inception last night, the theatre would have been packed to the rafters with pick-n-mix-toting teenagers more interested in their latest apps than the film. Net result: I enjoy my cinema trip less and Showcase increase their margins. Either way we all lose.

Call me a grumpy old 30-something paranoid Luddite if you must, but no more Orange Wednesday for me. What they need to do is get the other mobile phone companies to provide similar offers on different days and spread the load out a little bit. O2uesday anyone...

The upside of all this was that I got to see Toy Story 3. Rather than being a rather feeble excuse to generate a bit of extra revenue out of an old franchise by making a 3D version of it (I saw the 2D version and can't think of any bit when I wished it was in 3D), Pixar have done rather well. Like the original, Toy Story 3 follows the adventures of a group of toys trying to do their best for their owner - the now grown-up and soon off to college Andy. The films are renowned for being funny and poignant with fantastic digital imagery - the third instalment certainly delivers on both of those. I am convinced that if Pixar wanted to make a movie that looked 'real life' they would be able to, but they retain the cartoon appearance because it looks cooler. There are a couple of awesome visual sequences, most notable in a tip towards the end of the film, where the technology they use to generate these images has clearly moved up a level since the original 15 years ago.

The Toy Story films were always very funny, and some of the best laughs come in the interaction between a Barbie and a Ken doll. Some great throwback material to the heyday of those toys for anyone who can remember it. I do hope though that the appearance of a Barbie doll as a toy wasn't some kind of expensive product placement - that would sadden me, the last thing the cinema industry needs is Pixar selling out.

It's not all about comedy and effects though. As with all of Pixar's films there's a great story that's intensely sad and uplifting. Although it doesn't touch the emotional rollercoaster of last year's 'Up', Toy Story 3 is about growing up and moving on. The toys, Andy, and Andy's family all have to cope with Andy becoming a man and moving off to university. To be fair to them, Pixar have done a lot more with this second sequel than simply re-hash a lot of old gags. They've created a rather good film.

Also, the short that comes before the main feature - 'Night and Day' - is charming and funny; a nice touch from Pixar there. So Toy Story 3 was a good film, but it wasn't Inception. I've got a very busy few weeks coming up now with house moving and a couple of holidays, but I'll squeeze it in somewhere.

Surrogates - making Bruce Willis look younger

Yet another film that didn't motivate me enough last year to break out my wallet for a cinema trip - Surrogates arrived on my doormat last Wednesday morning. The trailers last year seemed to be advertising a summer blockbuster with explosions and Bruce Willis jumping around on moving cars; that's what had put me off really, since I'd expect a film with a concept like this to be a little more science-fictiony (great English there). It almost seemed like this was going to be another blueprint for a Hollywood destruction of good science fiction ideas; i.e. take an interesting concept and ask the question - are there enough explosions in this? I was fearing another Paycheck, so my £7.50 stayed in my pocket.

The concept: it is the future and 99% of the world's population (well, 99% of America - but we're supposed to take that to mean the world) live their lives through the use of 'surrogates' - robots through which one can interface remotely and do whatever you want without fear of injury or prejudice and without leaving the comfort of your bedroom. An interesting enough science fiction trope, one which I'm sure Arthur C Clarke would have dissected the physics of over the course of 5 books, but one which is thrown at us here in the space of a 2 minute compilation of news clips from the future. The clips tell of the invention of surrogates (by James Cromwell => EVIL CHARACTER!), their mass-production and introduction into everyday use. We are told that crime is at an all time low and that only a small splinter group of refusenicks remain unconvinced by the new technology - kind of a bit like IPhones I guess. Anyway, barely has this set-up had time to be digested by the average viewer (me) than the plot begins; someone has a weapon that can fry a surrogate and kill its user - OMG! Fear not though, Bruce Willis and his youthfull-looking hair are on the case.

What follows is 80 minutes (nice and short) of a fairly good mix of science fiction imagine-ifs, beard-stroking future history concepts, action and special effects. There are a few flaws in the science and sociology of the use of surrogates (example: why would the use of surrogates result in a zeroing out of crime?), but there wasn't really enough time to think about that too much. Also I'm sure that the culmination of the main plot doesn't make sense, but I'm trying not to think about it. And talk about a quality Chekov's Gun when the police visit the nerdy bloke who can disconnect people from their surrogates at will:

Police Woman : "So you can disconnect people from their surrogates - isn't that illegal?!"
Nerdy bloke : "Useful though!" [actor playing nerdy bloke does well to not wink at the camera]

Nicely done.

Something I really did like about the film was the acting and the subtle differences in movement and reactions when the actors were playing surrogates or 'meatbags'. Goes to show that no matter how much cash and CGI you through at a science fiction movie it still in the end comes down to script and performances. Verdict - well worth 80 minutes.

Next up on Fried Gold: Inception - the most exciting film I haven't seen yet since before Lord of the Rings came out.

Up In The Air

With a synopsis that runs along the lines of 'George Clooney is a loner with a thankless job who finds a new love and perhaps finds the happiness that has eluded him for so long', you'd think this isn't the film for me. The trouble is though that I think Clooney is a very good actor, up there with the best in the last decade, so I always check out his new stuff.

As soon as I finished watching 'Up in the Air' I was annoyed. Annoyed because the film seemed to portray a picture of life and work in which being made redundant is an opportunity for growth and where living life outside of the mainstream is a disease to be cured, in addition to the expected trauma. You see, Clooney plays a guy who flies around America firing people who have bosses too shit scared to fire people themselves. His job is to avoid a scene, to dress redundancy up as a chance for new life, an opportunity to shake out the cobwebs and start again. He spends over 300 days a year on the road and has the sole goal in life of amassing 10 million air miles. After a chance encounter in a hotel leads to a one night stand with a similarly over-travelled business woman, Clooney's new work partner (a very young, sparky and intensely irritating graduate type) slowly convinces him that what he really wanted all his life was to settle down. It's winding me up to even recall this bit of the plot.

This is basically it, and after 80 minutes of I was getting pretty tired. Thankfully the film doesn't end quite as twee as you'd expect, there are a couple of twists and turns that result in a very different message coming out at the end. It took me a good 24 hours and a discussion with a friend to decide this, but in the end I recon 'Up in the Air' has a positive message about following your dreams. I wont give away the ending too much, but by the final credits most of the characters have ended up following a path that they had always wanted to, but never did because of thinking they wanted something else. This links in with the concept of sacking people being a good thing. Although I think dressing redundancy up as an opportunity is managerial bollocks to make the process easier for employers, the idea of willingly living your life in a dead-end job because you either can't be bothered to leave or feel you have a responsibility to stay has some merit.

So, 'Up in the Air' gets a tentative thumb-up from me. Eventually.