QR Double Feature Part II: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a movie based on a comic book based on the aimless life of its 23 year-old protagonist based on classic video game sensibilities. That summation right there includes both "comic book" and "video game", so how I had not actually ever heard of Bryan O'Malley's Canadian epic until the first trailers for the movie were unveiled is way beyond me, but that's beside the point. What Scott Pilgrim brings to the table are the kinds of wild, polarizing elements that essentially make this a love it or hate it film. What side should you be on?

SO WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is the tale of one Toronto slacker and his quest to win the heart of the literal girl of his dreams. Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is an aimless young adult dating a high schooler named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). He spends most of his time practicing with his band Sex Bob-Omb, and just looking for "something simple" in his life. However, when he sees Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) first in his subconscious and then again at a party, he instantly falls in love with her. Things get crazy when it turns out that Ramona's exes have banded together to kill Scott in some twisted revenge plot against the woman who wronged them. Now, this slacker must step-up and defeat the League of Evil Exes in order to date Ramona, and hopefully learn a little something about being a responsible adult at the same time.

SO WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

Where to even begin? I'll begin by saying this movie is directed by Edgar Wright, and he brings the whole of his visual genius to this film. The comedy comes fast and furious, the action is amazingly shot and choreographed, and there is rarely a point where the carefully crafted visage of this world Wright has created reveals any cracks or flaws. The cast here is also superb from top to bottom, from the small supporting roles to the evil exes to the main cast, everyone does a fantastic job with what they're given to do. It also doesn't hurt that the story that the film tells is great and multi-faceted. It's extremely easy to appreciate this movie as the zany action/comedy hybrid it is, but there are just so many layers with the film's various characters and the individual stories each tell throughout the course of the action. In other words, this film is much greater than the sum of its collective parts.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

As much as I can praise this movie, it does have a few faults. For one, the movie's beginning has a lot of exposition and set up, but is still cut in such a way as if action were still taking place. This can get a bit disorienting as the scenes quickly jump across the screen, and it never truly comes together until evil ex number one comes busting through the ceiling of The Rockit club where Sex Bob-Omb are playing. The very premise of the film itself leads to a bit of a downfall as well, as the movie can get both exhausting with its constant manic fight scenes and seven evil exes that need to be introduced and dispatched in the course of a 2 hour movie. This inevitably means some don't get their proper time to shine, but the fact that the villains are this interesting that you are begging to see more of them is actually a weird kind of positive... I suppose.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Chris Evans might not convince you he can be Captain America in his role as evil skateboarder turned actor, Lucas Lee, but he definitely kicks ass as one of the more memorable exes in the film. I also can't praise Brandon Routh's performance enough as Todd Ingram, the Super Vegan. Michael Cera also hopefully starts getting a lot more cred after this movie, because like most actors nowadays, apparently everybody hates him for no good reason.

Also, when a movie can pull off a unique and awesome game adaptation, that's always a plus for me, and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: The Game is just plain awesome.

Lastly... where the hell did Mary Elizabeth Winstead come from? She's... she is... she is a nice lady.

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

I absolutely love this film. The concept of it. The execution. The performances. The video game references. Overall, its a relatable film to anybody who is in or can remember those young and aimless days where every happening was the end of the world or the greatest thing ever. And hell, if none of that appeals to you, you can at least appreciate this quirky little gem for its ridiculous premise and fight scenes. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a rare thing indeed, a movie that not only fulfills its concept and the expectations attached, but adds new depth and goes beyond mere genre labels and stamps. Although nothing this summer will likely surpass Toy Story 3, Scott Pilgrim may turn out to be one of my favorite movies of all time.

QR Double Feature Part I: The Expendables

Possibly one of the greatest film concepts ever, when The Expendables was announced and the first trailers were shown, I must admit I was extremely excited. This movie couldn't possibly suck with the literal and figurative firepower fueling it. Now that this big, dumb, action romp to end all big, dumb, action romps is finally in theaters, does it live up to expectations or is The Expendables not worth your expendable income?

SO WHAT IS THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

The Expendables follows the titular mercenaries on a suicidal operation on the fictional island nation of Vilena. A dictator, backed by a shady American, is bleeding the country and its people dry, and the CIA needs some heavy hitters to bring down the regime at all costs. Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), must decide whether or not he should risk the lives of himself and his team for a noble cause and a chance at redemption.

SO WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

The cast of this movie does what they do best, and that's to kill things and blow things up. When the action is good in this movie, it's very good. Highlights in the film include Jason Statham fighting a group of preppy basketball players, a "wrestler vs. boxer" rematch as Steve Austin takes on Sylvester Stallone, Terry Crews firing a huge gun, and Randy Couture executing the most pointless finishing blow I've ever seen in an action flick. Also, despite not having too much to say, the chemistry shared by the stars of the film is great, and it helps to compensate for some of the movie's faults. There also exists an incredible geek-out moment when Sly, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzeneggar share a fairly comical scene inside a church. Lastly, Mickey Rourke continues to be one of my favorite actors as, despite his limited role in this movie, he adds unmistakable charisma and emotion to his character with just a few monologues.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

The problem with The Expendables is, although it takes obvious cues from films of yester-year, it fails to eclipse any of them. The sad fact is that The Expendables is just too tame for its own good. Sure, there is plenty of bloodshed (some of which is obscured by some... interesting photography and editing choices), but some of it feels hollow when compared to the cast at work here. I mean, we're talking about a collection of action stars here, and sadly they all just feel like they're too contained and there's never a moment when these guys are just allowed to get nuts. When combined with the bare-bones plot with very few compelling villains and a very flimsy driving force for our heroes, you're left with something that amounts to an appetizer rather than the feast of action that this movie should have been. It should also be said that the Dolph Lundgren subplot started out with great potential, but failed to end satisfyingly. It's a shame because Lundgren actually does a good job, and sadly he doesn't get nearly as much time on-screen as he deserved (this can be said for a couple other cast members, as well). I mean, it's Dolph Lundgren. Throw the guy a bone.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Since the name of his character is mentioned MAYBE once in the entire movie, I'm just gonna assume Steve Austin played himself. I mean, it's even said how he has no qualms with laying the smack down on a woman (in real life, Austin was accused of abusing his ex-wife Debrah Marshall), so that's just further evidence that the Texas Rattlesnake is not acting so much as just walking on set and talking.

Also, Terry Crews in a movie without letting him do the robot dance? Blasphemy.

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

This is a very entertaining movie whilst it lasts. Putting aside any wasted potential, The Expendables is a great action flick the likes of which hasn't been in theaters in quite some time. That being said, with a weak plot and some even weaker characters, this movie lives and dies on both its action and the personality of its main cast. Both of these are relatively strong, making this a movie worth watching at least once, but there just isn't much to latch onto once the final credits roll.

i-Rix Review: Castlevania: Harmony of Despair

2010 seems to be the year of our lord Dracula. Not only is Konami's venerable vampire-killing franchise getting a proper current-gen console release when Lords of Shadow comes out later this year, but during Xbox LIVE's summer of arcade, we're given a unique take on their side-scrolling adventures in the form of Castlevania: Harmony of Despair. With its focus on multiplayer speed-runs over the more traditional story-driven castle exploration of its more recent efforts, Harmony of Despair is somewhat of an enigma. As such, it's ironic that the title of the game includes both the words "harmony" and "despair", because for those players that are not intrigued with the idea of working in harmony with fellow vampire hunters, this game will likely only lead to despair.

PROPER PROs

This is still Castlevania. However different the general mechanics of what you're attempting to accomplish in the game are, it still plays the same as the series has played since Symphony of the Night. The smooth platforming action combined with great character sprites and detailed environments still make this a joy to play. This adventure is a bit condensed however, with no story to speak of and 6 smaller environments taking the place of a larger castle, but that actually gives the game a bit of a retro feel as the goal of each map is simply to reach the boss and defeat it.

This plays into the main draw/downfall of the game, and that's its five playable characters and six-player online multiplayer. The game includes five characters from the more recent games in the series and each play different and have a different levels of progression that reward players for sticking with their favorite character. For example, on top of collectible weapons and armor, most have some kind of talent that can be buffed up through continued play as them. This includes Soma Cruz's ability of Dominance which allows him to collect the souls of slain enemies and use them as sub-weapons and summons, or Charlotte Aulin's ability to bind projectiles to her spell-book, gradually increasing the number and power of her magical spells. Taking your character online will mean that you'll have a particular role to play as you and 5 others go through the game's 6 stages and (hopefully) work together to take down the endboss, Dracula. That, however, works better in theory than it usually does in practice.

Lastly, like every other game in the series, the soundtrack in Harmony of Despair just kicks ass. From the very moment the opening guitar licks light up the first chapter, you're guaranteed plenty of the awesome music the series has become known for. If I ever see a soundtrack for this game in stores, I will not hesitate to purchase it.

CRAP-TASTIC CONs

The problem with Castlevania: Harmony of Despair is that each and every one of its positives (aside from its fantastic soundtrack) can also be seen as a negative, starting with its graphics. Although the environments look good and the character and enemy sprites animate well, every inch of this game is recycled from previous Castlevania efforts. Even if you're not such a fan of the game that you'll notice this, you'll probably notice that despite the HD in the title of this game, the textures are just a bit... jaggy. It's obvious that they attempted to touch-up their old models for this release, but perhaps instead they should have re-drawn some stuff if they seriously wanted to push this game as a major release.

As for the five playable characters, it again seems that Konami went with the economic choice in selecting characters that already had current-gen sprites. The oldest player model is Alucard (and as such he looks a tad out of place), which means that series stalwart Simon Belmont is not in this game. No, this game doesn't have Simon simply because they didn't have sprites for him, but even as such, a classic character like Richter Belmont who actually DOES have useable sprites is not included. The developers have already hinted (and leaked) DLC characters and maps, but that makes the game seem even more of an attempt to cash in. It also stands to mention that at 6 stages (each meant to be beaten within a time limit of a half-hour), this game is a little light on content.

And that finally brings us to actually playing the game. I actually like the fact that this game is challenging and a bit grind-y when played alone, but it's obvious that it was meant to be played with 5 others. That means your enjoyment of the game is going to be dependent on who you're playing with and, with no off-line co-op, that means it's most likely going to be strangers. While most players are relatively cool and attempt to stick with you throughout the stage, there are quite a few jerks or people who have absolutely no idea what they're doing, which isn't a whole lot of fun. Also, the only other mode included is a Survivor mode in which 6 players try to kill each other. I think the only way to describe why this mode doesn't work is this statement.

THIS IS CASTLEVANIA.

THE FINAL VERDICT

If you're a Castlevania fan, this can be a fun addition to your collection. There is some fun to be had here, and the idea of putting together the series' hunters to take down Dracula is a great idea. The execution, however, is far from perfect, and everyone else not acquainted with the franchise aren't going to really see a lot of appeal. Do yourself a favor, if they ever release the soundtrack on CD, use the 15 dollars you would have spent on this game on that.

Final score: 2.5 Bone Pillars out of 5

Questionable Review: Inception

Since I've been neglecting my blog as of late (despite sitting on a bunch of stuff I should really be writing down), what better way to get back into the swing of things than tackling Christopher Nolan's latest juggernaut of a movie, Inception; a movie I saw whilst on my recent pilgrimage to Las Vegas.

This movie really just kinda snuck into theaters, in my opinion, and managed to garner a ridiculously huge audience through its original premise of "subconscious security". As A Nightmare on Elm Street first showed us, we're never more vulnerable than when we're asleep, and Nolan has taken that idea into what is essentially high-stakes/high-concept crime movie. Does this lead to success, or is this movie far from a dream come true?

SO WHAT IS THIS MOVIE ABOUT?

As I stated before, this move is all about dreams and what occurs within one's own mind. It revolves around Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his shady activities as an agent of the mind and master at the art of extraction which is the act of entering the dreams of another person in order to extract some clandestine information from them without them even realizing it. His expertise draws the attention of energy corporation CEO Saito (Ken Watanabe) who promises to get Cobb and his partner, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), out of the mysterious trouble they are in if they are able to perform an "inception" job on a rival. Inception refers to the act of PLANTING an idea into someone's head rather than extracting it, something that has been proven to be far more difficult to achieve, and Saito wishes this to be performed on a business rival (Cillian Murphy) so he will break up his father's energy monopoly and allow Saito the upper-hand.

The film then breaks into full-scale "bank-heist" mode as Cobb must assemble a team of specialists to make sure the job goes down without a hitch. Among them are an "architect" (Ellen Page), a "forger" (Tom Hardy), and a "chemist" (Dileep Rao), all essential to building a convincing dream-world. Things start going south almost immediately as the combined complexities of constructing layer upon layer of dream reality are even FURTHER complicated by Cobb's sordid past which makes the operation a fight for the participants' very lives.

SO WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

The very concept of Inception is incredibly intriguing and executed phenomenally well for how complex it eventually gets. You might not ALWAYS understand the greater intricacies of what is going on, but the movie does a good job of slowing itself down to make sure the basics are explained. The dream world itself is also very well done through the use of subtle special effects, and one scene in-particular is pretty incredible in the way it makes a familiar environment feel extremely surreal.

There is also no denying that the cast here is stacked with the highest quality of actors. DiCaprio does his usual great job as the troubled hero of the story, and Page is fantastic playing the audiences' anchor to reality (being the relative rookie and the storyline and the one who truly questions Cobb's motivations). I would also probably mark this as Gordon-Levitt's breakout role, as he does an equally good job of playing both suave professional and comic foil. The rest of the cast is equally strong, with Watanabe in particular putting on a great performance as the cold, yet trustworthy Saito.

SO WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?

For as much as this movie deals with dreams and the darker patches of the mind, only a few times does it ever truly get as bizarre as you yourself might recall your own dreams to be. That is a missed opportunity. The mainstream critics as well as the marketing campaign for this movie is really pushing the MIND FUCK aspect of it... yet my mind felt relatively unsatisfied with just how straight-forward the plot is.

Finally, this movie suffers from three of the pitfalls of Christopher Nolan's films. The first is its ridiculous run time. This movie is almost 3 hours long, and it certainly feels that way as the climax drags on and on for far too long; there is only so long one can feel tense before it becomes too much, and this movie's climax is just a bit too much. Secondly, the dialog is a overwrought in places, which leads to some overly dramatic and just flat-out stupid conversations. People don't always spout cryptic shit, Nolan, so stop making them do it. Lastly, the majority of the action sequences are shot like ass. If you have ever seen Batman Begins, you know that Nolan isn't the greatest at staging coherent or even exciting action sequences, and that is the case here as well. Overall, these are just nitpicks, but they do add up to a point.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Oh, Ellen Page. How I wish you'd marry me and make giant fore-headed babies with me. Alas, it shall never happen. That aside, it's actually kinda funny just how young and out-of-place Ms. Page can be in a majority of scenes in this movie. For those that don't know that she's 23 years old, it can make the kiss between here and Joseph Gordon-Levitt seem like pedophilia.

SO WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?

Inception is a good movie. Nothing more, nothing less. It's easy to dig the over-arching idea of it, but its length when placed next to the extent of its plot makes a lot of the film seem like padding. It is greatly pushed up by the strength of its acting performances and its originality, but this is definitely a movie that will likely be recalled as being greater than it actually is. You should definitely experience its unique and complex world at least once, but don't let yourself be lost in delusions of this being a masterpiece.