MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Trailer – Scott Pilgrim Vs The World


Edgar Wright notes
Songs featured in trailer.

42 Responses to “Trailer – Scott Pilgrim Vs The World”

  1. goodvibe61 says:

    Ho hum.

  2. LYT says:

    Reminds me quite a bit of a movie I helped make called MAD COWGIRL. Except I doubt I will like this as much.

  3. Joe Straat says:

    I guess I have to be the dork who’s jived about this. It looks like an insane explosion of my entire adolescence hopefully reined in by Edgar Wright (Even the evil exes. They may not duel you as epically, but nerd girls-while awesome-do have some stalker-esque exes sometimes). Since it’s based on a comic, hopefully,it doesn’t have any odd plot points by Wright like the cult in Hot Fuzz. I know it was a means to an end and the end was the awesome last half-an-hour, but it didn’t fit with the Hollywood action movie in country town England thing at all.

  4. a_loco says:

    A lot better than the first trailer. Gives more of an indication that Cera will break from his usual.
    Still, as cool as it is in the novel, Winstead’s hair is hideous in living colour.
    Also, I’m stoked to see Toronto as Toronto, and not just the upper class areas that I barely recognize (like in Chloe).
    Joe, I suggest you watch Hot Fuzz again. I didn’t like it the first time, but after realizing that Wright isn’t just a comedy guy, but also a huge Tarantino level film nerd, I appreciated it a lot more.

  5. Joe Straat says:

    What movies should I keep in mind with the cult aspect while watching it a second time, or is that something I’m stupid for asking about? I liked Hot Fuzz just fine, it’s just that part of the movie seemed an extremely odd fit for the ironic twist on the Bad Boys over-the-top cop movies.

  6. Foamy Squirrel says:

  7. aris says:

    Enough with this guy. Seriously. He plays the same shlub in every movie. Does anyone think this will open in any way?

  8. IOv2 says:

    1) Chicks with crazy coloured hair make the world go round, so long with that awesome Ramona Flowers’ hair.
    2) Who cares if it opens? Really? Who cares? The fact that Scott Pilgrim got turned into a movie, directed by Edgar freaking Wright no less, is an accomplishment in and of itself.
    and
    3) Seriously though, a Scott Pilgrim movie is coming in like two months. That blows my mind up.

  9. Krazy Eyes says:

    I’m not sure why so many people seem so down on this movie. Maybe this type of material or maybe Michael Cera have run their course. I think it looks like a pretty fantastic adaptation of the comic book (admittedly, which I’ve only glanced at a few times and not read all the way through).
    The fact Edgar Wright is directing is the clincher with me. Loved SHAUN, was so-so on HOT FUZZ, but SPACED gives him a lifetime pass in my book.

  10. Tim DeGroot says:

    “It’s on. Like Donkey Kong.”
    That doesn’t really rhyme. It should be “It’s on. Like Zaxxon.”

  11. Thefoulness says:

    The graphic novels are just amazing, beautiful work and I can’t recommend them enough.
    This movie adaptation looks sort of awful. Like all sorts of awful.
    Plus Edgard Wright sort of sucks too. His movies are funny for about 10 minutes and then just get unwatchable.
    I love the books, but figure this movie is gonna bomb because it looks pretty bad.

  12. I’m really excited for this one….maybe even more so than for “Inception.” But again, like with “Kick-Ass,” I don’t get the marketing.
    Obviously the PR team has kicked it into high gear as the 2 trailers have dropped and all the cool geeky bloggers were allowed to post their set visit reports which, as will be proven by this movie unfortunately tanking, are no longer a decent source of publicity. But then we gotta wait till OCTOBER to see it!
    In a crap summer film season, why are they waiting 4 MORE months to open this thing??! Ugh….open it!

  13. Eric says:

    Shaun of the Dead is all kinds of awesome and Hot Fuzz was fun enough. So I expect some good things from this, even though I’m more tired of Michael Cera’s schtick than any other actor right now.

  14. christian says:

    “His movies are funny for about 10 minutes and then just get unwatchable.”
    Need I say EPIC FAIL?

  15. yancyskancy says:

    Edgar Wright sells it for me.
    Re Michael Cera: I suppose if there were blogs in the studio era, would we have seen endless posts like “I’m so tired of Cary Grant’s shtick; ‘Look at me, I’m so handsome and charming and funny.’ And what’s with Cagney? You’re a fast-talking gangsta – we get it. Don’t even get me started on that bitch Bette Davis.”

  16. LexG says:

    The whole premise of this movie/series is annoying; Winstead is cute, but how would a chick that young have already logged SEVEN SERIOUS EXES?
    Even a douchebag like Cera should run for the fucking hills from an 18-year-old girl who’s already logged that many exes.
    Reminds me of SLUMDOG where that douche Jamal was OK with batting cleanup after a DECADE OF JOHNS had pulled a train on Latika.

  17. Eric says:

    Yancy, I’m not opposed to the idea of a movie star with a consistent persona– I like Tom Cruise, I like Harrison Ford, I like Jack Black, etc.– it’s that Michael Cera’s particular persona is grating, and we’re given it in increasingly larger doses these days, to diminishing returns.

  18. Stella's Boy says:

    It’s a fine line. I love Jesse Eisenberg and believe he is an outstanding actor. He tends to play a variation of the same character quite a lot, but I never feel like he is phoning it in or duplicating characters/performances. Back when Arrested Development was airing on Fox, I thought Cera was hysterical. By Nick & Norah he was annoying me more than anything else. He seems very one-note to me in a way that Eisenberg does not. However, it’s very subjective.

  19. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Lex – I’m guessing that’s partially the point of Anna Kendrick’s comment about “12 evil exes”.
    Plus the way it’s phrased in the trailer makes it sounds like this is a standard test for new guys (and gals) – which means she’s gone through god knows how many potential applicants too (or for some bizarre reason the exes don’t care as long as the new boy/girlfriend is Evil ™).

  20. Foamy Squirrel says:

    11. Wutevah.

  21. christian says:

    With only two classic films under his belt and a brilliant TV series, Edgar Wright is pretty much the best young comedy director in the biz.

  22. Stella's Boy says:

    While I think Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are far from perfect, they’re so consistently funny and enjoyable I feel like a naysayer for criticizing them even a little. Shaun seems to be the more beloved of the two but I prefer Hot Fuzz and always stop to watch it if I’m flipping channels and it’s on.

  23. The Big Perm says:

    Variations of the same character seem to be more accepted when the actor doesn’t make the same type of movie over and over…Cary Grant made dramas, comedies, suspense movies, etc. Ford has made dramas, comedies, action. Cera keeps doing the same shtick in the same comedies, and like Boy says, he seems to be doing the exact same thing in them. I’m sort of tired of the guy too.

  24. jasonbruen says:
  25. Joe Straat says:

    “It’s on like Donkey Kong” was in American Wedding and it’s occasionally showsed up in various shows and movies from time to time after that. Strangely enough, I don’t believe it was in King of Kong.

  26. Pelham123 says:

    Edgar Wright is one of, if not, the most exciting new writer/director working today. He’s batting a brilliant .1000 with “Spaced”, “Shaun of the Dead”, “Hot Fuzz” & “Don’t!”. Goddamn, get your tickets now for “Scott Pilgrim” people, this is going to be epic.

  27. Umm…attention slathering fanboy: “Don’t!” is not a movie.

  28. NickF says:

    I’m someone who initially did not like Shaun of the Dead. Maybe because it was sold as another ensemble (a larger cast of characters) that generally end up succumbing to the typical horror tropes. The first viewing left me cold. As a former Brit, you’d think that I would have ate it all up, but I didn’t.
    Somehow, someway, I gave it another shot and fell in love with it. I noticed the long take and the call back to it. The genius behind the script and how well all the characters worked to together. I even took notes on the movie, and that’s something that I haven’t done that since a film class that I took in University. Shaun is a movie that I love and can watch endlessly. One of these days I’ll buy the Blu-ray to replace my HD DVD version.
    My experience with Hot Fuzz was more favorable from the start. Again, I didn’t love it at first, but on subsequent viewings it all clicked. These movies are deep in the way that so much is going on indirectly that you need to watch it once more to see or find everything that you missed. At the end of the day, Hot Fuzz is great too.
    Spaced. Loved that too when they finally released the DVD in the US.
    Scott Pilgrim doesn’t work for me because of one person, Michael Cera. That guy is playing the same role that I’ve ever seen him in. This isn’t a newsflash since there are a lot of actors, male and female that do the same in Hollywood. Sadly though, I find Cera to be the most uncharismatic of them all. The mumbling, uncertain, “I don’t know,” attitude irks me. Some kind of brain transplant must happen a third of the way into this movie, if I’m to believe that he’s going to become a confident asskicker willing to fight for this girl who’s hair changes each time we see her. Visually, the movie looks amazing. Cera is enough to weigh the entire thing down for me.
    I think another good discussion to have would be the deal with all of these set visits and editing room bay visits that I’ve seen on movie sites recently. Does this in someway become a conflict of interest or butter up the site journalists opinions towards the movie they’re writing about.

  29. Nick, et all;
    I find it funny people are complaining about the Cera “characterization,” as if he’s the first actor to find a niche and stick in it till the money stops. I mean, since the dawn of cinema actors (and actresses) find a role and just drive it into the ground. The dude’s like what, 25 years old? He’ll break out of it like Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Clint Eastwood and even someone like Jimmy Stewart did when he got in with Hitchcock.
    Jack Lemmon stayed pretty true to his archetype though and Cera kinda treads the same hapless, cute schlub routine Lemmon did. (**No, Cera is nowhere CLOSE to the actor Lemmon was, not saying that)Cera just needs to find a role or filmmaker he trusts to break his mold.
    That being said, it rarely seems to work for actors “these days” at least financially. Then again, I’m sure people will point out how wrong I am, but look at Black in “Margot at the Wedding” or Stiller in “Permanent Midnight.” They went dark and dramatic and the movies weren’t received well. Jim Carrey seemed to segue fairly well but went to the Oscar-grab roles too much and it turned on him.
    And as for set-visits….lets all see how many “critics” visited the set and then see how many think “Scott pilgrim” is the best thing since “Kick-Ass.” Should make things pretty clear.

  30. hcat says:

    Cera is basically a young Bob Newhart, almost the same stuttering staggered ‘can you believe this’ schtick. Agreed that its fine in small doses or on weekly television but I can’t imagine showing up in theaters every six months to experience it. I will watch it because of Wright (though I must be the only person in the world who did not enjoy Spaced).
    And Reitman is the best young comedy director. I know many hate Juno, but I cant imagine a single arguement against Smoking and Up in the Air.

  31. Hallick says:

    I love Edgar Wright’s movies and I still kind of like Michael Cera. But this trailer, even moreso than the version before it, doesn’t sell one iota of why I should watch the kid fight seven evil ex-boyfriends for HER. The girl as presented here is a big old shrug. Winstead was wayyyyyy more irresistable in “Death Proof” and “Live Free or Die Hard”. If he was going after one of those characters, I could kind of get this conceit. But in the trailer it’s like, “wow – unapproachable and sullen without a hint of warmth, wit, or dirty sexiness. So sarcastically worth it (if you have a candy-colored hair fetish)”.

  32. jeffmcm says:

    Oh, there were plenty of strong arguments against Up in the Air a few months back. Some of them I even agreed with.
    Look at Jason Reitman’s Twitter feed for some more evidence that he’s not exactly the next Billy Wilder.

  33. hcat says:

    Not sure is a twitter feed is an accurate view of someone’s talent, people seem to be annoyed by Ebert’s twittering but you don’t have any issues with him do you.
    And Wilder is quite a bar to set. I wasn’t discussing best of all time but just the best of the young field.

  34. leahnz says:

    the best thing about the scott pilgrim trailer is kieran culkin, igby needs a bigger career

  35. Chel says:

    I agree – Cera’s shtick is getting old. It did work for Arrested Development because the setting. All the members of the family were so focused on themselves and even Michael did not pay attention to him that he became introverted. But his character does not work without a context. And dude do something new with the hair. I wish he would turn into a macho man by the end of this movie. I still don’t get how he became famous past Arrested Development playing the same character.

  36. IOv2 says:

    Hal, it’s a destiny thing between Scott and Ramona more than anything else, and neither of these trailers has really sold that enough.
    That aside, I really do not get the Cera hate. Seriously, out of everything and everyone in the world to hate, you hate Michael Cera? That just seems so lame.

  37. leahnz says:

    i don’t hate michael cera, io, if that makes you feel any better. he’s certainly the type that would get atomic wedgies at school. all those super skinny mildly amusing nerdy dudes like cera out there are probably looking at him and thinking, ‘ha suck it, jock strap, one of us is a moviestar’

  38. Stella's Boy says:

    Count me as someone who thinks Thank You For Smoking is Reitman’s best film and hated Up in the Air.
    I also don’t hate Cera. Not at all. I just think his shtick is getting a tad stale. I found him pretty irritating in Nick & Norah, so much so that I stopped watching it halfway through.

  39. Kambei says:

    LexG: Ramona is somewhere in her mid-20s, although I don’t think she ever reveals her age. Pilgrim is dating a 17-year-old (I think?) high school student at the start when he meets her…

  40. LYT says:

    The problem with Cera’s shtick is that it seemed really natural at first, until he did it over and over and it became clear it was a shtick…to rub it in, he even did PAPER HEART, playing a fake version of himself in exactly the same way.
    Paul Dano, to cite a good counter-example, started out with a very similar shtick but has expanded it with stuff like THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

  41. Tim McDonaugh says:

    Even with Cera playing the same kind of character he’s played before I want to see this movie. I love the retro video game/ 60’s Batman feel to it.

  42. And I love love love that they have brought in Chris Evans, Brandon Routh and Jason Schwartzman for this thing… that’s good casting right there!

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

This is probably going to sound petty, but Martin Scorsese insisting that critics see his film in theaters even though it’s going straight to Netflix and then not screening it in most American cities was a watershed moment for me in this theatrical versus streaming debate.

I completely respect when a filmmaker insists that their movie is meant to be seen in the theater, but the thing is, you got to actually make it possible to see it in the theater. Some movies may be too small for that, and that’s totally OK.

When your movie is largely financed by a streaming service and is going to appear on that streaming service instantly, I don’t really see the point of pretending that it’s a theatrical film. It just seems like we are needlessly indulging some kind of personal fantasy.

I don’t think that making a feature film length production that is going to go straight to a video platform is some sort of “step down.“ I really don’t. Theatrical exhibition as we know it is dying off anyway, for a variety of reasons.

I should clarify myself because this thread is already being misconstrued — I’m talking about how the movie is screened in advance. If it’s going straight to Netflix, why the ritual of demanding people see it in the theater?

There used to be a category that everyone recognized called “TV movie” or “made for television movie” and even though a lot of filmmakers considered that déclassé, it seems to me that probably 90% of feature films fit that description now.

Atlantis has mostly sunk into the ocean, only a few tower spires remain above the waterline, and I’m increasingly at peace with that, because it seems to be what the industry and much of the audience wants. We live in an age of convenience and information control.

Only a very elite group of filmmakers is still allowed to make movies “for theaters“ and actually have them seen and judged that way on a wide scale. Even platform releasing seems to be somewhat endangered. It can’t be fought. It has to be accepted.

9. Addendum: I’ve been informed that it wasn’t Scorsese who requested that the Bob Dylan documentary only be screened for critics in theaters, but a Netflix representative indicated the opposite to me, so I just don’t know what to believe.

It’s actually OK if your film is not eligible for an Oscar — we have a thing called the Emmys. A lot of this anxiety is just a holdover from the days when television was considered culturally inferior to theatrical feature films. Everybody needs to just get over it.

In another 10 to 20 years they’re probably going to merge the Emmys in the Oscars into one program anyway, maybe they’ll call it the Contentys.

“One of the fun things about seeing the new Quentin Tarantino film three months early in Cannes (did I mention this?) is that I know exactly why it’s going to make some people furious, and thus I have time to steel myself for the takes.

Back in July 2017, when it was revealed that Tarantino’s next project was connected to the Manson Family murders, it was condemned in some quarters as an insulting and exploitative stunt. We usually require at least a fig-leaf of compassion for the victims in true-crime adaptations, and even Tarantino partisans like myself – I don’t think he’s made a bad film yet – found ourselves wondering how he might square his more outré stylistic impulses with the depiction of a real mass murder in which five people and one unborn child lost their lives.

After all, it’s one thing to slice off with gusto a fictional policeman’s ear; it’s quite another to linger over the gory details of a massacre that took place within living memory, and which still carries a dread historical significance.

In her essay The White Album, Joan Didion wrote: “Many people I know in Los Angeles believe that the Sixties ended abruptly on August 9, 1969, ended at the exact moment when word of the murders on Cielo Drive traveled like brushfire through the community, and in a sense this is true.”

Early in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, as Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt’s characters drive up the hill towards Leo’s bachelor pad, the camera cranes up gently to reveal a street sign: Cielo Drive. Tarantino understands how charged that name is; he can hear the Molotov cocktails clinking as he shoulders the crate.

As you may have read in the reviews from Cannes, much of the film is taken up with following DiCaprio and Pitt’s characters – a fading TV actor and his long-serving stunt double – as they amusingly go about their lives in Los Angeles, while Margot Robbie’s Sharon Tate is a relatively minor presence. But the spectre of the murders is just over the horizon, and when the night of the 9th finally arrives, you feel the mood in the cinema shift.

No spoilers whatsoever about what transpires on screen. But in the audience, as it became clear how Tarantino was going to handle this extraordinarily loaded moment, the room soured and split, like a pan of cream left too long on the hob. I craned in, amazed, but felt the person beside me recoil in either dismay or disgust.

Two weeks on, I’m convinced that the scene is the boldest and most graphically violent of Tarantino’s career – I had to shield my eyes at one point, found myself involuntarily groaning “oh no” at another – and a dead cert for the most controversial. People will be outraged by it, and with good reason. But in a strange and brilliant way, it takes Didion’s death-of-the-Sixties observation and pushes it through a hellfire-hot catharsis.

Hollywood summoned up this horror, the film seems to be saying, and now it’s Hollywood’s turn to exorcise it. I can’t wait until the release in August, when we can finally talk about why.

~ Robbie Collin