Movies About Making Movies

The Stunt Man – 1980, Richard Rush

The Player – 1992, Robert Altman

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang – 2005, Shane Black

How many movies about making movies can you name (without including parodies or spoofs or documentaries)? Not many I’ll wager. Not because there aren’t many of them, there are so many that they constitute a sub-genre all of their own. Most are thrillers or otherwise dramatic films, often with comedic elements, the basis for which are either in-jokes about the film industry or satirising cinematic clichés. Movies about making movies can therefore come across as inherently smug. Maybe this is why they don’t make much money and don’t reach a wide audience.

There’s a wikipedia page titled ‘List of Films Considered The Worst’ which makes interesting reading. One of the films in the list, under the section ‘Star Vehicles’ is a film called ‘Burn Hollywood Burn’ about a director making a movie that is so bad he wished to discredit himself from it. BHB was so bad that the director discredited himself from it. This ironic affair highlights the difficulty in making a self referential film that is not self indulgent or uninteresting, and explains why when such films are made, they tend to be labours of love for those involved. The Stunt Man is one such heartfelt and earnest production.

The Stunt Man took at least ten years to get made. It was director Richard Rush’s magnum opus, such was his obsession with the film and it’s legacy that he eventualy financed and filmed a documentary about it’s production; The Sinister Saga of The Making of The Stunt Man. The Stunt Man is quite a good film, but it doesn’t warrant the devotion that Rush has for it. Sadly, the lack of success his great work achieved put Rush off directing, he only made one more film, and that was after a gap of fourteen years.

When it was released in 1980, The Stunt Man provided a somewhat groundbreaking insight into the world of film making. Rather cleverly the stunts and action sequences of the film-within-the-film that are being taken so seriously by the fictional director, are presented as screwball, madcap affairs played out to a comedy Buster Keaton style score. The satire is well layered and Rush probably deserved his Best Director Oscar nod, and Peter O’Toole wholly deserved his Best Actor nomination for his portrayal as the manic director. Unfortunately for them both, Raging Bull was also up for a couple of awards that year.



The Stunt Man is let down by a poor supporting cast, which is something that you could never say about The Player, with over 40 cameos by big names from over thirty years of Hollywood history. This one was also a labour of love; Robert Altman had made critically successful films without much financial success for years, and The Player, a film about a ruthless and paranoid movie studio executive, was drawn from the personal experience of many movie makers. It’s quite an average thriller really, but it stands out in the way it ridicules the people decide which films get made. It’s also clearly been made by a man who loves films, the famous 7 minute opening shot can be considered a short film in itself.



I love the way movie pitches are mocked. “It’s Out Of Africa meets Pretty Woman.”
The rest of the film doesn’t really live up to that shot. The Player has a deliberately unconventional ending and originality should be applauded, but ultimately it comes across as a little too pleased with itself.

The best movie about movies that I’ve seen is Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang. It was written and directed by Shane Black. Shane Black wrote the screenplay for Lethal Weapon when he was in his early twenties and sold it for a quarter of a million dollars. He went on to command extravagant fees for a few lacklustre movies including a reported million dollars for a mere re-write of Last Action Hero (another movie about movies).

In a sense, all of Blacks screenplays were movies about movies because they adhered so rigidly to movie conventions (specifically action movie conventions). I once read the first act of Lethal Weapon online and it’s an excellent script, a masterclass in structure and narrative description, but it is far from revolutionary. Black’s style of writing ‘blockbusters’ eventually became boring to even him and he took a ten year break before returning with KKBB.

This one is the least explicitly about moviemaking (although the film industry does provide a background) yet it does the best job of holding up in front of the audience all the formulaic ingredients of Film (in this case Film Noir) and saying “This is how a film is written”. Yet at the same time, the satire and exposition is all part of the plot. The tone is perfect, it’s very clever without being smug and features excellent performances by Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr.

Movies about movies seem to be made by experienced directors toward the end of their careers, maybe because they feel they’ve got nothing left to lose. I reckon George Lucas is considering one to get back at the most obsessive of all the Star Wars fans.

Surrogates

Surrogates – 2009, Jonathan Mostow

I’m sure I saw a trailer for this in a cinema at some point earlier in the year, which implies it had at least a limited release, but I’m not so sure it didn’t just go straight to DVD outside the US. Although it wouldn’t be the first Bruce Willis film to slip under the radar (anyone ever see Hart’s War, or Tears Of The Sun?). I think it’s overexposure that has caused Bruce to become less of a draw than he was; he’s been in at least two or three films a year since 1988. I’m sure he’d be the first to tell you he should have been more picky.

I think Surrogates is one of his better choices. If someone had told me after I’d watched it that it was based on a novel by Philip K Dick, or it was written by Andrew Niccol I’d have believed them. It was in fact based upon a short running comic book by a guy called Robert Venditti (short lived by design, not because it was discontinued as far as I can gather).

‘Surrogates’ refers to the remotely controlled robots that the people of the future use to life out their life. What started as a mobility aid for the disabled has become an eternal youth for the majority of the people of the world. The trailer explains what’s going on:



If the plot looks predictable, that’s because it is, but in this case, I don’t think it detracts from the film.

The reason Surrogates is so reminiscent of Phillip K Dick’s work is because it takes place in a future where most people don’t seen very happy, and some technological advance has occurred that changes or affects everyone’s lives. Phil’s books, like a lot of sci-fi, tend to revolve around one Big Idea which in itself is interesting and original, but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny when the central concept of the idea is questioned.

The best example of this is his 1968 novel ‘Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?’ which was adapted into the 1982 movie Blade Runner. The story is about androids, who are almost completely indistinguishable from humans, who have super human strength and intelligence and are created solely for the purpose of working in the harsh conditions of Martian colonies. These androids are almost completely human, but their big flaw is that they cannot develop or process emotions properly and completely lack empathy. So when they eventually go crazy and return to Earth from Mars and start killing people, android bounty hunters are called in to take care of them. This all makes for a riveting story, but it begs the question ‘Why would they make inherently psychopathic robots in the first place?’ I think that Blade Runner does a better job of brushing over this little problem than the novel, and it seems to be the case than a lot of the films based on the works of Phillip K Dick are better than the novels that inspired them.

Surrogates suffers from the same kind of problem; it presents the audience with a particular future world scenario, then requires the audience to accept that scenario without thinking too hard about how plausible it is. The film brushes over a lot of the implications the scenario might have on society and focuses on the ones that are important to the story being told.

Surrogates is one of those rare films that is greater than the sum of it’s parts. The premise is flawed and the plot is predictable but it’s incredibly watchable because of the events that take place with the Surrogates. There is a sub plot about Bruce’s deteriorating relationship with his wife which is more interesting than the main story. If this were an independent foreign language film about people living out their lives through idealised robot versions of themselves, it would be lauded as a ‘compelling study of human relationships, and society’s obsessions with youth and beauty’. But it’s not. It’s a Hollywood sci fi action film without much action, and yet...so much more.

Wim Wenders

After watching Wings Of Desire I read up on the films of Wim Wenders.

I’d heard of a couple of them; ‘Paris, Texas’ and ‘Buena Vista Social Club’, but it was the description of Until The End Of The World that really interested me.

Until The End Of The World – 1992
I’m glad I got round to watching it, if only to satisfy my curiosity, but I’d hesitate to recommend it, which is why I don’t hesitate to explain the plot:

Set in Space Year 1999, UTEOFW tells the (long) story of a Woman who has a couple of chance encounters with some French bank robbers and a mysterious American who is being pursued by an Australian bounty hunter and a German private eye. She leaves her novelist boyfriend (Sam Neill) to chase the strange American (William Hurt, wooden as ever) from France all the way across Asia to Japan, over to California, and ultimately to Australia. This takes up the first 90 minutes, and it isn’t particularly engaging. The last hour or so of the film takes place in a laboratory in a cave in the Australian desert where the really interesting bit happens.

You see, this American fellow has a device (stolen from his former employer) which he is using to record images that he will play back to his blind mother, letting her see again for the first time in years. But it turns out that this device can be used to record dreams and play them back, and watching one’s dreams is so addictive, a person will stop caring about anything else.

I thought the whole ‘dream watching addiction’ thing was very compelling, so it’s a shame it takes so long to get there and the all other stuff doesn’t really add to the second half of the film. The ‘international road movie’ that makes up the first half is actually quite poor, full of goofy moments and bad humour that doesn’t stand up to the quality of to Wim’s overall body of work. I only watched the 158 minute version of course, not the 280 minute Directors Cut, which is split into three parts, so perhaps it’s not fair to judge UTEOTW based on the incomplete version. Renowned critic David Thomson says this film is ‘as awful a film as a good director has made’ but I think that’s a bit harsh (Mr Thomson admits to walking out of Wings Of Desire).

It’s not all bad though. The film was set in the near future, and includes some nice futuristic touches; in-car satellite navigation is predicted quite accurately, and there are some well conceived ideas about the way software interface and presentation might evolve. Often it’s the technology that features in a film that dates it the most, but in this case it’s actually the soundtrack that has aged badly. Wim approached some of the biggest names in music of the day; U2, REM, Elvis Costello and Depeche Mode to name just a few, and asked them to compose the music we’d be listening to in 1999. The results sound (to my ear) like they belong very much in 1992.

Wim’s films have always been inspired by Ozu, so it’s no surprise they unfold so slowly.

Speaking of slow films;

Paris, Texas – 1984
Wim’s most critically acclaimed work is shorter than UTEOTW but it’s still two hours plus of not much happening. But a sign of a great director is that they can make a film where not a lot happens, yet it is still compelling, and most importantly, the effort of watching the whole thing is rewarding. It has a similar vibe to Wings of Desire, although not a fantasy and with a conventional plot.

Harry Dean Stanton’s Travis Henderson wanders around the Texas desert, then he wanders around LA, then he wanders around Houston. In between there’s a lot of driving (Wim is keen on road movies). The shots of the desert and the LA suburbs are equally lovely. Should it be any surprise that non-Americans often create the most striking images of America? Lots of films feature amazing shots of the Texan desert but Wim (or should that be his cinematographer) really captures the isolation and decay of the small settlements that are dotted around. I wonder how some of the classic Westerns would have looked if directors on the 50s and 60s had access to helicopters to facilitate epic shots of the desert.

The middle class suburbs in the hills above Los Angeles have probably never looked more appealing than in this film. It’s the bit of LA I’m not used to seeing, as opposed to the low lying ‘burbs that are been depicted in Boys ‘n’ The Hood and a hundred other Gangsta’ flicks.

Paris, Texas is more than just a pretty face; it’s the story of a man and a woman who drift away from each other, and then can’t stop drifting. The cast all provide performances of understated despair. It’s certainty the greatest Harry Dean Stanton performance, his casting was an excellent choice. He makes bigger names seem overrated, the Travis Henderson character is typical Dustin Hoffman territory, but Dustin would have given too much, whereas Harry leaves us wanting more.

Though the film is long and slow, the end justifies the means. It’s happy and sad in almost equal measure, probably leaning toward the sadder side, but the characters are compelling enough to prevent it becoming depressing. Half of the dialogue takes place in the last fifteen minutes of the film, which may sound uneven, but it produces a rewarding ending.

I’d recommend Paris, Texas over the other two Wim Wender’s films I’ve seen, although it’s not as good as the best ‘slow-burn’ film; Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring.

Ten Short Film Reviews 7 – Steven Seagal Special

Steven Seagal+

A few months ago, we got Sky+ hooked up. Now that I can record any old film and watch at my convenience, I watch all sorts of films that I know aren’t very good, but if I’m even slightly curious, I’ll Sky+ it anyway and get round to watching it when I’m in the mood. This has facilitated my recent viewing of so many Steven Seagal films. His popularity is strange, but not inexplicable; Seagal plays bad-ass characters with confidence and believability in a way his action movie peers do not. Van Damme is athletically superior, Schwarzenegger is bigger and tougher, Willis is grittier, Stallone is more likeable. But Seagal has a presence on screen that comes from the fact that in real life Seagal Fears Nothing. That he never bothered to become a muscled hulk proves this. He plays the same character over and over and. in a way, he has a fraction ( a tiny fraction) of what Eastwood has, and that’s a fraction more than anyone else.

Nico: Above The Law – 1988, Andrew Davis
The one that started it all. Legend has it that talent agent Michael Ovitz saw Steven Seagal performing an aikido demonstration and decided to make the tall, dark, slim martial arts master a star. Steven’s acting debut basically consists of a petulant Dirty Harry impersonation that he wouldn’t change for the rest of his career. But to Stevesies credit, his first performance is better then either Van Damm or Schwarzenegger’s debut as leading men. Steven was involved in the writing and all the preachy and unnecessary “the CIA shouldn’t be able to get away with the shit they pulled in Nicaragua” stuff was probably his input (Steve would go on to include political and environmental rants in later films).

Marked For Death – 1990, Dwight H. Little
The one with the Jamaicans. Probably the last Seagal film that the big man actually runs in, and for good reason. It didn’t take long to realise that Steve is at his best when standing still, but it’s fun to watch him in his younger days moving quickly. Lot’s of hilarious Jamaican stereotypes and a good supporting performance by the reliable Keith David.

Under Siege – 1992, Andrew Davis
The one worth watching. The only one that spawned a sequel (I think). The best Die Hard rip off of them all. So good in fact that it started the trend for ‘Die Hard on a something’ movies (Passenger 57 was released in the same year but with less impact). So what makes this one so good? The plot is simple but well crafted, and better than the usual Seagal flick. The supporting cast of Tommy Lee Jones, Gary Busey and Colm Meaney is the best Steve ever appeared with, but other Seagal films feature talented actors as well. The thing that makes Under Siege stand out is Steven’s performance. He’s playing the same character as always but he holds back all the ‘Seagalisms’ that usually go with it (or maybe director Davis, working with Seagal for the second time, should take the credit?) For the uninitiated, the worst aspects of a Seagal performance that sometimes crop up are:

adopting a strange southern states accent, even though he was born in Michigan and raised in California.

delivering his lines in a mocking, piss take manner because he’s so confident he can beat the crap out everyone else, removing any threat that the villain may potentially cause (often prefixing his line with a rhetorical question, perhaps ad-libbed).

Under Siege features none of these and is the most watchable Seagal film because of it. Casey Ryback returnes in...

Under Siege 2: Dark Territory – 1995, Geoff Murphy
The one on a train. Introduces Ryback’s sassy teenage niece, an idea used in Die Hard 4.0 with John McClane’s daughter (these films have become self perpetuating). Probably the second best Seagal film, it’s a lot lighter in tone that its predecessor and equally well paced and entertaining. The script actually deserves a better supporting cast as Eric Bogosian clearly wasn’t the first choice to follow in Tommy Lee Jones footsteps, although Everett McGill does a good job as the chief heavy. I always recognise him as the corrupt DEA agent from License To Kill “Sorry old buddy, but two mill is a hell of a chunk of dough.” Apparently Steve only agreed to make this if the studio financed his environmental mouthpiece On Deadly Ground. He clearly isn’t keen on sequels but I’d love to see a third. In fact I’d like to see a crossover with Die Hard. ‘Die Hard 5: Under Siege’ anyone?

Glimmer Man – 1996, John Gray
The one with Keenan Ivory Wayans. Just about the last film where Seagal still has his good looks, before he let himself go. Like ‘On Deadly Ground’ Seagal uses this film to push his personal beliefs, in this case it’s basically an advert for Buddhist spiritualism (the type of Buddhism where it’s OK to violently murder people so long as they try to hit you first). Brian Cox plays the evil agent-man holding Seagal’s badass killer past over his head. Given that it was a failure at the box office, it’s kind of surprising that Glimmer Man became the template for all the ‘Seagal and a Black Guy’ movies that followed.

Fire Down Below, 1997 – Félix Enríquez Alcalá
The one with Kris Kristofferson. Another Segal film with an environmental message, another box office flop. This one apparently lost more money that On Deadly Ground, which is a shame because it’s actually quite good. I’d even go so far as saying it’s the third best Seagal film I’ve seen. Set in rural Kentucky with an excellent country / bluegrass sound track, the story is actually quite compelling. Seagal is the Agent Man in the Deep South, seeking out a truth that the locals don’t want to face. It’s not exactly Mississippi Burning but it’s better than the usual plot that Steve has to work with (and better than anything he’s capable of writing himself). Although it gets a tad strange when they introduce an unnecessary sexual abuse twist. It seems quite long for a Seagal film though, mainly because the action scenes are so spaced out. The fighting and shooting and car chasing is exiting when it does occur, and the bits in between are helped by a good supporting cast including Harry Dean Stanton.

Exit Wounds – 2001, Andrzej Bartkowaik
The one with DMX. Seagal’s last film to make money at the box office, it kicked off a brief series of collaborations with rappers who want to be actors and don’t let a lack of ability stop them. As if to make up for X’s failings the cast includes Anthony ‘Antwon Mitchell’ Anderson, Michael Jai White, Bill Duke and even Eva Mendes, but all of them are underused. DMX does the soundtrack of course; including the worst ever sample of a Bill Withers song.

Half Past Dead – 2002, Don Michael Paul
The one with Ja Rule. The last Seagal film given a cinematic release. This one’s a prison drama (one more genre piece to tick off the list Steve, now how long until the film about battling cyborgs from the future?). Filmed almost entirely on a sound stage, in contrast to the straight to DVD films that followed; external locations in eastern Europe are cheaper. Morris Chestnut plays the villain in this one, you may not remember him as the comic relief black guy from Under Siege 2. The hilarity of Ja Rule getting the crap kicked out of him must have been intentional. When he’s not being bounced off the walls, he’s spouting generic gangsta bullshit that had grown very stale long before 2002, as had the Matrix style trench coats that the bad guys wear.

Renegade Justice – 2007, Don E. Fauntleroy
The one with...Eddie Griffin? The plot is typical of Segal’s modern straight to DVD fare, but what’s not typical is his clear commitment to the project. The plot is coherent, there’s no voiceover or abrupt ending which are the usual signs that Segal has fallen out with the director, demanded more money or refused to return for re-shoots. Steve rolls into LA to find out which gang killed his son; was it the Latin Gang or the Black Gang. The guy in charge of the Latin Gang is Danny Trejo, and he’s cool, so it wasn’t them. The guy in charge of the Black Gang is Eddie Griffin, whose stereotyped performance makes Marked for Death seem progressive.

Kill Switch – 2008, Jeff King
The one with Isaac Hayes. And that guy from Miami Vice (not Don Johnson, the other guy). I touched upon this one back in May this year, but only to mention how disappointing it was. It was penned by the great man himself, who has been more involved with the writing of his films from the early 2000s (about the time he started going straight to DVD). The plot revolves around some kind of Se7en-esque crazed killer picking off his victims methodically but it doesn’t take long to descend into incoherence. The fight scenes appear to have been edited in such a way to make them as funny as possible.

It’s a shame that Steve is no longer capable of more that throwing a punch or firing a gun, he’s clearly not bothered about staying in shape. A guy in a bad wig stands in for him in all the fight scenes nowadays. I’ve no idea of what his role in the upcoming Machete will be like, but I hope that someone someday casts Seagal in a role he deserves, in a film directed by someone who can keep him in check and make him stick to the script (which Steve hasn’t had a hand in writing). Until then, I suppose I’ll look in on Channel 5 or Bravo every now and then and see if they’re finally showing On Deadly Ground (the one with Michael Cane).

51st Post Guest Blog

Many thanks to Turner for letting me squat in his blog for a session as part of his 50 post celebration. Turner asked me to review a new release that I've been going on about for a good year or so now and finally saw on opening night. It turns out I'm quite poor at writing concise reviews so view if you will, my full thoughts on a Top 3 of 2010 contender:

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World - Recommended

Last Wednesday Scott Pilgrim finally opened in the UK, a few weeks behind its poor opening in the US where the film disappointingly and unexpectedly bombed. Major shame, because this film deserved to be appreciated.

Let's cover the basic plot of the film. Based on the underground comic book series, Scott Pilgrim sees Michael Cera as the titular hero character coasting through his early 20s, slacking around with his band and dating a 17 year old high school girl named Knives Chau. He falls in love with a mystery new girl in town called Ramona Flowers and the movie follows them getting together. Problem is to be together Scott is required to beat her 7 evil exes in fights to the death.

Sound like a mix of a feasible but complicated indie flick, and a potentially gruesome dating movie! But the films style is a homage to 90s 8-bit computer games. You pick that up straight away when the Universal logo comes up. Awesome. When the fights happen they are cartoonish, OTT, and so impressive and continuously inventive it's amazing to watch. It's definitely a comic book movie, more so than any comic movie that's come before it. Words pop off the screen, the stylistic tics of the comic book remain intact, even including some original Bryan O'Malley art work and lettering in parts. But interestingly the comic was in itself a mix of odes to old school computer games, and the indie music scene in Toronto. These run deeply through the film as a result.

The film clearly shows its influences, for those who know what they're looking for. The computer games references range from the sublimely subtle (Great Fairy Fountain theme from Zelda playing in a daydream? Amazing) to the cringingly try hard ("What do you play?" "Zelda mostly"). There's so much more, not just in terms of throw away lines but in visual style during the fights, and amazing digital effects. If you want to investigate further see here.

What really makes this film work is the music though. Scott plays in a band, they play pretty often in the film and come up against other bands on their journey too. Films like this can live or die by the music it chooses because if that band don't sound like a real band, if it's too contrived, it just won't work (See 'Where's Fluffy?' in Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist snorearama. Don't worry, SP vs. TH is on another level). So in a master stroke in planning each separate band has an actual real life equivalent writing for it. Beck writes the Sex Bob-omb songs (lo-fi indie fuzz), Metric fill in for Clash at Demonhead (which from my own view of the comics fits them perfectly), and Broken Social Scene sort out the Crash and the Boys songs. What makes this extra clever is that once the songs are written, it's the cast performances which are used in the film meaning there's no jarring awkward voice syncing gonna happen.

More importantly than that Broken Social Scene and Metric both come from a Canadian music scene that was, at the time a couple of years ago, vibrant and exciting and it was during this time the comics were written in Canada. This helps add to the authenticity of the whole thing.

I totally loved the film. But I feel almost wrong in reviewing it. I'm not impartial. I am in every way their target audience: I've read the comics, I've grew up in the 8 and 16-bit era, I love pixel art, Zelda and chiptune, most my favourite bands come from Canada, and I like Michael Cera.

I think that last one is important in knowing if you're going to enjoy this flick. On the nets Cera gets a lot of flack about his samey act he's been doing for years now. I remember reading he'd be taking the role of Scott Pilgrim, and to be honest I was disappointed because I know what Cera does, and that's not how I pictured Scott in my head. But he doesn't just pull out his standard performance, he does step up and puts in a great showing. Scott acts thoughtless but in an innocent way, and there's growth (although it takes a while) where Scott learns a few things and how his decisions affect other people. It’s worth commending Cera on nailing the fight scenes too.

The film has a depth in its supporting cast that means in many cases the smaller characters are guilty of some scene stealing. Many reviews have mentioned the work of Kieran Culkin, who does indeed have some good lines. My personal favourite was Aubrey Plaza as Julie Powers, with a caustic dislike for Scott. The exes too are each pretty fleshed out and enjoyable, and one of the best scenes goes to Chris Evans and his turn as Pro Skater turned Action Star Lucas Lee. I'm not ashamed to say I've been following him for a while since I found he made the film "Not Another Teen Movie" not only bearable but also rewatchable. But in each sense the Exes have their own defined styles and indeed endlessly inventive and entertaining battles. Elsewhere Mark Webber is perfectly cast as Stephen Stills, the leader of Scott’s band, popular-at-the-moment Anna Kendrick turns up for a small part, and Ellen Wong makes such an adorable Knives it kinda pulls your loyalty away from the film’s intended couple.

So after all that, why would I recommend the film beyond “It’s full of games and music I like”? Well, for one it’s genuinely funny. There’s smart zippy dialogue as well as reoccurring visual gags (Scott’s haircut trauma for one). Secondly how often do things like 8 bit computer games act as stylish pointers for films? Never. Thirdly and most importantly it just needs to be seen! Edgar Wright has clearly put so much of his heart into making this a potential game changer in the way visual effects are seamlessly blended in, and how it takes the film to a higher level. You have genuinely never seen a movie that looks this way before, and given the Box Office results you probably never will.

The film isn't flawless by any means though. You leave the cinema unsure with whether you agree with Scott's choice, because out of anyone Ramona is the least fleshed out. In fact, after their first get together their relationship doesn't have too many opportunities to grow and breathe on screen beyond the battle scenes and I think this does the story some damage. The film may also drag a little towards the conclusion since the first batch of exes are all so good and the latter don't quite make it. The inclusion of Scott's ex Envy is much slimmer than her presence in the book, where we got more of the emotional damage but also some reconciliation which rounded out not only Envy more but also Scott‘s story. Finally it may be because the comic book was started 6/7 years ago but some of the styles, Ramona's in particular, just seem a little dated by today's standard. And Scott wears sweat bands still.

I’m getting the feeling there’s a lot of waffle up there, so here’s a summary:
See this movie. It’s original, inventive, playful, unique, heartfelt and funny and whenever those things are combined they should be commended and experienced at the cinema. Don’t miss it.

There’s still more I could write: Edgar Wright deserves an award, why did this film bomb in America? But they’re for another time perhaps.

In the meantime as a final tempter, if you find any of these videos amusing or at all interesting, go see this film.






Can't embed this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jMruFHTwrY&feature=related

Finally, I have a page of my own further waffles at http://lutherburger.blogspot.com/ come say hello.

Craig