4 Responses to “Review: Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World (2010) – Jon’s Take”

  1. Fitz says:

    The age-gap between moviegoers and critics might have killed its box-office. Or the stoner audience stayed home. Who knows?
    Fitz recently posted..

    • Jim says:

      Fitz, I agree. I also was ashamed at the theater I went to it was in one of the crappiest theaters they had. I was pissed and regret seeing it there because the screen was so small. I think this movie would have been better suited opening on a weekend that The Expendables was not so that it would have had a better chance. This is an instant cult classic and one that gave me a nerdgasm lol.

  2. I’ve been hearing some very good things about this, from unlikely people and those I expected to like it. One to watch, definitely.
    Encore Entertainment recently posted..Loved Getting Wet Just Now- Blogathon

  3. Andrew says:

    I don’t actually think Cera plays his normal shtick at all here. Cera usually plays timid, gawky, bookish types who at the end of it all turn out to be the smartest guys in the room. Scott Pilgrim is never the smartest guy in the room (well, maybe during his bass battle with Todd). He’s not particularly thoughtful, and while I wouldn’t call him bold or even that outspoken he certainly has the chutzpah to sidle up to Ramona at the party and try to strike up a conversation with her. Sure, he botches it, but George Michael Bluth wouldn’t have even gone over to her, much less later on engineer a ruse to get her to his apartment to try again. (Hell, would George Michael have even gone to the Chaos Theater once, let alone twice, to try to win Ramona back?)

    Scott is everything that most of Cera’s roles have never been. I think this is something totally new for him, and in that regard I 100% agree that if Cera is only remembered for one thing it’ll be this role (or, of course, George Michael).

    The backlash against this film is unbelievable. One of the dickhead reviewers at the Boston Phoenix went totally over the rails on it. The generational gap might be part of the reason why, but I don’t think that totally explains it given that a number of the film’s champions fall outside of the generation this is aimed toward. It might be because it’s so hip and cool that if you didn’t see it over opening weekend that you missed out, because it was old news by Tuesday. Or it might be that people just don’t like having fun at the movies, or laughing. I don’t know. It’s a mystery.

« Review: The Lottery Ticket (2010)
Review: Get Low (2010) »