scary_ice
Posts: 170
Joined: 11/1/2007
From: Meath, Ireland
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy
Firstly, it's not a 5* film, but I'll be generous and say it's 3* at best. It succeeds on the level of being entertaining most of the time, but there are lots of major flaws present. However, I'm happy to say I was wrong when I said that it would be puerile garbage. There's actually a lot to like about the film, but I'm still confused who the intended target market was supposed to be. The storyline is utterly bonkers and, in the basic sense, totally predictable. At risk of over-analysing the material, it doesn't have anything profound to say about relationships - would I be alone in preferring the alternative ending? In truth, I don't think that Scott deserves either Knives or Ramona, but there's nothing onscreen that convinced me that he and the latter character are actually a compatible couple. But then again, none of the characters are given much of a chance to develop anyway. This is a flaw from the source material which is obviously a comic book. By the way, I personally find it hard to use the term 'graphic novel', because that's just a nonsense phrase made up by adults who like to convince themselves that what they're reading isn't a comic. In my opinion, if the story's got more pictures than words, it's a comic, no matter how mature the themes and imagery may be!)
This leads me on to the acting. Having not read the source, I've no idea what Scott is like on the page. But on film, he's selfish and unlikeable, and that's not actually Michael Cera's fault. He gives his typical performance, but with the added value of some very impressive stuntwork. In short, he does his best with a character who I'm amazed that any female would find appealing. (I did appreciate the running visual joke about his crap, self-cut hair and frequently appearing hat though.) Now, Chris Hewitt's DVD review commented on Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Ramona being a casting mistake, but I'd disagree. I think she did a great job making Ramona enigmatic and mysterious, visually and in terms of her personality evoking a character who would seem exciting and different to Canadians! Even when hampered by truly horrendous hairstyles and outfits, she also managed to make Ramona surprisingly sexy too. Ellen Wong as Knives stole the film for me though, with a wonderful range of facial expressions radiating sympathy even when she's being a demented stalker for much of the film! (By the way, given the film's frequent self awareness, I was hoping someone would break the fourth wall and ask why her character was called 'Knives' - alas, I was disappointed!) But, given the talent involved, I have to say that a lot of the supporting actors were awful. Many of the Evil Exes were given so little screentime that they'd no option apart from horrendous exaggeration to make an impression. I never thought that Jason Schwartzman (did I spell that right?) could ever be a convincing swordsman, but that's pretty much all he did well. But, Chris Evans is very funny, although I thought it a little too demeaning to finish him off in a skateboarding accident rather than in mortal combat. Also, was there any reason why the fights could only take place at night, in public? Will Brandon Routh ever get another big break though? He deserves better than a desperately poor wig and eyes straight out of Big Trouble In Little China!
I'll say it again - Anna Kendrick, why were you associated with this nonsense? You were nominated for an Oscar, for God's sake! You also looked older than Michael Cera which is unfortunate as you were playing Scott's younger sister!
I'm rambling as usual, but I want to try and accentuate the positives rather than being negative. The film is visually stunning, terrifically inventive and with some sensational action scenes. Also, Rory Culkin, where have you been all this time? I thought he was great. But, for all the praise heaped on the soundtrack, I'm going to have to disagree. I didn't like any of the songs and the 'garage band' ethic was too strictly applied to a load of badly performed and basic material. Ultimately, I find it hard to assess SPVTW without being critical, because I want to say that it's great, but it just isn't. It's a glorious, hyper-real mess of colour and invention, but it's not a great film. The technical triumphs don't do enough to obscure a wafer-thin story that fails because the 'love triangle' at its heart is so wrong that all three characters should run away from each other. I'll watch it again but somehow I don't think that I'll ever 'get' it, or love it the way that many of you seem to.
I don't think it's a 5* film because, at the end of it, I don't feel moved or educated at all. I'm briefly entertained, but then it's gone without making that lasting impression that true classics can. Inception left me with a head full of questions. The King's Speech captivated me with sensational acting and the titular Speech itself, a moment of spellbinding cinematic magic. In terms of comparisons, I use these because they're genuine 5* films, challenging and mature. Again, I keep on coming back to the question of who this film was intended for? Is it Edgar Wright's fault for shoehorning in too many videogame homages? I don't know, but although I fully accept that although SPVTW is far from garbage, I ultimately think it's still pretty juvenile. I expect that many will passionately disagree, but given the talent involved, I was hoping for more. I'm not criticising anyone for enjoying either the film or the source material, but I can find nothing in the former other than superficial entertainment. I'll go for 3* and be generous - taking into account the film itself and the fantastic array of extras on the DVD. The cast and crew's enthusiasm for the project is enough to win over my cynical heart!
Can anyone spot the blatant contradiction in this post?
I know this was posted ages ago but I haven't checked this thread in a while. If you had read the books you would see how the characters are far more developed as they have hundreds of pages to do so. There is far more down-time just hanging around with them as they do normal stuff and we get to see more of their relationships with each other and their backgrounds. That's the advantage of a comic see? Condensing it all into a 105 minute film means all of that has to go out the window resulting in the increasingly breakneck pace of the movie.
|
Printable Version
RE: Target Audience? - 
). 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread