Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Every so often, I watch a movie that reminds me of the decade in which I came of age: the 90s.  While not as sleazy as the 70s, and not as absolutely stupid as the 80s, American pop culture in the 90s was still fairly ridiculous.  I don't often watch movies that are defined by their decade, but I made an exception for Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

"Ridiculous"how?  Two words: Butterfly Vagina

Before I continue, I have to admit that I am a fan of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television show.  I'm not much of a TV fan, but I have been sucked into that teen melodrama and found it surprisingly entertaining.  I am not going to compare the two, though; I believe that serial storytelling is vastly different than filmmaking.  I just want to acknowledge ahead of time that I might have a soft spot in my heart for Joss Whedon, who created the TV show and wrote the screenplay to the film.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the story of (not surprisingly) Buffy (Kristy Swanson), your average, run-of-the-mill Valley Girl stereotype, circa-1992.  Basically, she cares about fashion, shopping, boys, and using "like" at least three times in every sentence.  Like, gag me with a cliche.  Buffy's life would be normal, if not for the intervention of Merrick (a slumming --- even by his low standards --- Donald Sutherland).

Sutherland, contemplating seppuku

Merrick finds and trains the Chosen One in each generation (he's old) to battle the vampire master, Lothos (Rutger Hauer).  The Chosen One is always a teenage girl, and she always loses to Lothos; this time, it's Buffy's turn.  On a side note, though, Merrick has a worse losing record than my beloved Chicago Cubs; if this were professional sports, he would have been fired at least a hundred years ago.  Anyway, in a bit of plot convenience, Lothos likes to treat his only viable opposition as sport, so he and his vampire minions set up shop in Buffy's hometown of Los Angeles.  Can Buffy defeat the dastardly vampire leader?  What effect will Merrick have on this Valley Girl?  What the hell is an Oscar winner doing in this movie?  All this, and more, can be answered by watching this movie. 

But who would want to do that?  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not, by any imaginable definition, a good movie.  You can blame many people for that, but I think the first targets should be the actors.  Kristy Swanson is, quite simply, not much of an actress.  Unfortunately, her character goes through a pretty typical story arc, so her performance seems even more bland and predictable than usual.  Donald Sutherland is pretty decent as a creepy old man, but he does make me wonder exactly what his acting standards are; does he look for choice roles, decent money, or just someone who will offer to buy him Funyuns?  Rutger Hauer had swelled to his current size by this point, so he wasn't as physically intimidating as Blade Runner-era Rutger would have been.  Hauer is only a little subpar in this role, primarily because his character is stupid (he deliberately allows his enemy to get stronger) and his costumes and makeup were occasionally laughably bad. 

Smirkingly bad, at the very least

Surprisingly, the supporting cast is pretty solid.  Luke Perry played Buffy's love interest, and he managed to have some reasonable reactions --- when weird stuff starts happening, he tries to leave town --- as well as some of the better lines in the movie.  David Arquette has a small role, but the banter between him and Perry was one of the better aspects of the film.  Paul Reubens doesn't make for a very fearsome vampire, but his comic timing provides some of the movie's best jokes, particularly with his death scene.  You might also recognize Stephen Root and Hilary Swank in fairly boring character roles, as well as Ben Affleck, Ricki Lake, and Thomas Jane in bit parts.  None of them are particularly interesting to watch here, but it can be fun to spot them before they were famous.

Vampire or extra from Wayne's World?

This is the only feature film directed by Fran Rubel Kuzui and I think I know why.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a story that, probably, shouldn't work.  The premise alone guarantees a fairly cheesy movie experience.  Kuzui doesn't go much further with the idea than that; in fact, I believe that the Wisconsin-ish levels of cheesiness present in the movie are due to Kuzui making lazy choices and settling for stereotypes and easy jokes.

Thankfully, no stakes-for-dildos jokes

I suppose you can blame a lot of that on Joss Whedon's script, too.  This is an odd script, though; while there are a lot of lame jokes and gags, there are also a few genuinely funny and clever moments.  For every Valley Girl-ism, there's a line like, "He ruined my new jacket...!  Kill him a lot."  I hesitate to say that the filmmakers butchered his script, but...this screenplay draft is a lot cooler than what ended up on-screen.

For example, Luke Perry's friend didn't look or sound like an Arquette

That's not to say that the movie is awful...it's just not very good.  There are some clever lines and it managed to blend comedy and horror together --- unfortunately, it was neither scary or funny enough to truly work.  Still, it's kind of cute for what it is: a stupid comedy-horror hybrid.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

If I was going to get a tattoo, the short list for choices would include the Triforce from The Legend of Zelda video game series.  Sure, I could go the boring route and get my soon-to-be-wife's name, but marriage is 'til death do you part.  Zelda goes beyond death; when you die in the game, you just start over from your last save point.

I would like to point out that I am not a huge video game nut.  I don't own a Playstation 3 (or 2, for that matter), or XBox 360, or even a Wii.  Even as a kid, I was never a huge gamer.  I point this out to illustrate how much video games, particularly the ones from my childhood, still impact my life, despite the fact that they haven't been a big part of that life for many years now.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a love note to classic video games, wrapped around a love story.  Basically, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) meets the (literal) woman of his dreams, Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and ineptly attempts to woo her.  Before their first (pity) date, Scott gets an email.  It's not from anyone he knows, and it includes the sentence "duel to the death."  His reaction is, "This is so...BORING.  Delete!"  That gives you an idea about Scott Pilgrim.  He is nerdy and nervous (you knew that because Michael Cera plays him) and absolutely idiotic.  That also indicates the attention span of this movie; there isn't much plot or character development, but everything moves so fast that you barely miss them.

That boring email was a notification that, to date Ramona, Scott would have to fight defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends exes.  The word "defeat" implies a certain amount of violence, and this movie happily supplies it, but in a very non-traditional form.  Instead of gruesome gore or ultra-realistic fighting, this movie opts for a fighting style reminiscent of early '90s video games, like Street Fighter II.  For those unfamiliar with games like that, let's just say that impossible physical acts, like flying, shooting energy blasts, and being thrown through buildings are par for the course.  There is no blood or torn shirts or jeans after the fight; if that alone didn't indicate that this film's violence is cartoony, then this would: defeated enemies turn into a pile of coins...just like in video games.  In between these fights, Scott tries (with varying levels of success) to understand Ramona, rock out with his band, Sex Bob-omb, and generally get a life.  In the process, he pitches some woo, breaks some hearts, kicks some butt, and gets his own kicked.  It's all academic, though.  Defeating the evil exes doesn't earn him the girl; he has to do that on his own.  This movie was set in Toronto, but but Cera, sadly, does not say "aboot" even once.

For a movie that exudes so much love for video games, I found it pretty friendly to non-gamers.  Sure, you'll get more from the movie if you know the references (I got chills when they played the respawn music from the original Zelda), but a basic knowledge of mid-80s games would be enough.  When Scott hits a bad guy, points appear on the screen, like in any old Mario game.  When bad guys die, they leave behind no body, but money, like in role-playing games, Zelda, or dozens of other games.  When Scott does well enough, an extra life appears.  It's not terribly in-depth stuff, but a lot of the sound and visual effects are taken directly from classic games, so there are levels to appreciating it.

Of course, if you are completely unfamiliar with video games (Hi, mom!), then a lot of this would appear absolutely random.  How that might affect your enjoyment of the film can be reflected in how much randomness you can take.  If you thought The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was quirky and fun, then you're pretty safe.  If you get frustrated and confused when classic Looney Tunes characters mimic Edward G. Robinson or Peter Lorre, then you're beyond my ability to help.

Normally, I would think action scenes featuring Michael Cera would also be beyond helping, but this movie disproves that theory.  The fight scenes, while basically relegated to the possibilities of classic 2-D fighting games, are varied and very well assembled.  Cera actually looks formidable, which is noteworthy on its own.  When you factor in seven separate fights, many featuring faceless underlings (how very Nintendo!), that means that Cera fights dozens of enemies, and each fight has its own style.  He is able to pummel ex number one, Matthew Patel (Satya Bhabha), but he has to outsmart number two, and challenges others to musical face-offs.  These scenes could easily have been repetitive, but each one felt fresh.

The cast is an interesting blend of known and unknown actors; you usually don't see so many recognizable actors in small parts in the same film, with less known actors playing larger roles.  Cera's impeccable timing and geeky charm are perfect in the lead role.  Mary Elizabeth Winstead is almost as likable as the too-indie-cool Ramona, and she does a good job when she must give her character some depth.  The rest of the characters are completely one-dimensional, but the movie does not demand (or, honestly, deserve) depth from them.  As such, the supporting cast is just a series of likable caricatures.  That's not a bad, thing, mind you.  This movie doesn't slow down enough for genuine emotion to get in the way, so caricatures is exactly what this movie needs.  The supporting cast is surprisingly good, too.  Chris Evans, Brandon Routh, and Jason Schwartzman make up the most notable evil exes; they are all suitably varied, angry, and amusing.  Anna Kendrick has a small role as Scott's mean sister and Kieran Culkin is supremely entertaining as Scott's indifferent gay roommate.  Thomas Jane makes a cameo as a member of the Vegan Police, too (did I mention that this movie is random?).  The other important roles are handled by relative unknowns.  Ellen Wong, in particular, is impressive as Scott's fake high school girlfriend.  The rest include Scott's band (Alison Pill, Mark Webber, and Johnny Simmons) and his own evil ex, Brie Larson.

Director and co-writer Edgar Wright has an excellent instinct for blending stupid and charming in comedies.  His last two films, Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, show this instinct off well.  Scott Pilgrim doesn't have as much heart as Shaun or the bromance of Hot Fuzz, but it does have more energy and enthusiasm than those movies combined.  This was obviously assembled with a love for the source material.  I haven't read the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels, but there is just so much going on, with so many distinctive characters, that it has to be the case.  I knew from his other work that Wright could handle jokes on film, but I was very impressed with the action sequences and the post-production work.  Certain sounds appeared as words (when the phone rang, for example, you see "rrrrring!!!"), 8-bit video game graphics popped up on occasion, and the battle effects looked great.  In short, this movie felt like it was adapted from a comic.  Not because it has super-heroes or stilted dialogue, but because it takes the visual and the written and blends them in a way unique to that medium.

While I enjoyed the breakneck pace, quick wit, and general fun this movie has to offer, I admit that the movie is open to some very just criticisms.  This is not a deep movie.  There is no emotional core to it, beyond some pretty simple teen drama stuff.  The characters are essentially character sketches, typically more suitable for Saturday Night Live than feature films.  The focus on the fight scenes ruins any chance of the movie having much of a plot.  The jokes, action, and editing in this movie are so fast that it's difficult to pay attention to anything, even if there was a plot.    Oh, and Aubrey Plaza's character was obnoxious.

And yet, I loved it.  This isn't a movie that is going to make you think, it's going to make you laugh.  While the target audience is clearly aimed at the video game generation (1980-present), the dialogue is really sharp and there are several moments that made me laugh out loud.  The soundtrack is clever, abrasive and funny, like the scenes it is featured in (bonus cool points to Edgar Wright for getting Canadian bands on the soundtrack).  I recognize a charmingly simple stupidity in Scott Pilgrim's character that reminded me of one of my favorite cinema characters, Navin Johnson from The Jerk.  Both are essentially nice, but absolutely clueless and the choices they make are as misinformed as they are.  Like Steve Martin's movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is not a film that tries to to do more than be fast, popcorn-light entertainment.  And in that, Scott Pilgrim is victorious.

UPDATE 11/10/10: Okay, I just re-watched Scott Pilgrim for the first time.  I was a little worried that this movie wouldn't stand up to repeated viewings because it is such a shallow film.  As it turns out, I still loved it.  I picked up on many more details (especially with how the soundtrack plays off the plot and characters) the second time around and was generally entertained throughout.  I have finally read the complete Scott Pilgrim graphic novel collection, and that gave me a greater appreciation for some of the detail that went into the movie.  Like The Watchmen, this film is ridiculously faithful to its source material, but Scott Pilgrim is not beholden to it; little things were changed to make a great comic into a great movie, as it should be.  The movie is still very shallow and has a pretty niche intended audience, but it is, above all else, a lot of fun.  Oh, and if you haven't seen the mock movie posters for Chris Evans' character yet, check them out here.  They're fantastic.

The Mist

Do you love stereotypes?  If so, then I have a movie for you!  It's called The Mist!  It's about a mysterious mist that envelops a town.  I probably should have written "Spoiler Alert" before that sentence.  Oh well, it's too late now.  Yes, this is another movie where a small group of friends/naughty teens/townspeople gather together in a building, trying to stay safe while zombies/vampires/serial killers/monsters/weather reign supreme outside.

I'm not against this story formula, mind you.  Most zombie movie follow it, and 30 Days of Night was the best vampire movie I've ever seen.  The enemy this time is, predictably enough, in...the mist.  DUH DAH DUMMMMM!!!  The building that townspeople gather in happens to be a grocery store.  So we've got a novel location and mysterious natural-looking phenomenon.  With those two elements, you could make a taut, stylish horror/thriller with no problem.  You could even go the original Dawn of the Dead route and use the location as a commentary on consumerism.  Or you could do what writer/director Frank Darabont did and do nothing of the sort.

Instead, we get insufferable, unbelievable characters.  I know, the script is based off a Stephen King short story, but that's no excuse.  Thomas Jane is the main character, and he is the best part of this movie; Jane stands out in his role as "the rational guy," if only because everyone else is poorly developed and makes bizarre choices.  Oscar winner Marcia Gay Harden is god awful as the resident holier-than-thou Bible thumper.  Does this movie really need a uber-judgmental Puritan in the cast?  Wouldn't it have been better served with a more moderate character, like...I don't know...maybe a reasonable person with a strong religious faith?  I would have settled for a character that just didn't sound like a cartoon.  Instead, one of the main characters is completely unsympathetic, despite a (theoretically) sympathetic underlying motivation.  Andre Braugher, who can be excellent when given the right role, is another disappointment.  He plays a hot shot lawyer and is clearly the most intelligent person in the grocery store.  His character's skepticism and sense of persecution are on par with the most annoying JFK conspiracy theorists you can imagine ("The moon landing was just a cover-up for The Man to finally get rid of FrankenKennedy!"  Actually, that's a decent B-movie right there...).  William Sadler is rarely a good actor, but is normally inoffensive.  Here, he's annoying.  Laurie Holden is decent, but she doesn't have a whole lot to work with.  The only supporting actor that was a pleasant surprise was Toby Jones.  He wasn't great by any means, but it doesn't take much to be a breath of fresh air when the rest of the cast are stock characters from soap operas.  Here, he plays the short, wussy guy who happens to be a crack shot with a pistol.  That's actually kind of cool.  The rest of the supporting cast is poorly developed, but ranges all the way from redneck to hick.

The characters are bad, but the plot could make that unimportant (see: Independence Day).  It doesn't.  Instead, ridiculous characters do ridiculous things when monsters attack.  For the first fifteen minutes or so of the group's self-imposed quarantine inside the store, there is the reasonable debate that there might not be anything dangerous in the mist.  Okay, that makes sense.  Until people you know die in front of you, it could all seem like hysteria.  That is, until one of the store clerks is killed by a monster's spiked tentacles in the loading dock area.  There's a lot of blood afterward and Thomas Jane chopped a tentacle off with a fire axe.  Okay, so there's clear physical proof, so now everybody can get on the same page.  For reasons that are beyond rational thought, Andre Braugher's character refuses to look at the blood or tentacle, assuming that it is a trick.  In fact, only a handful of people take a look at the evidence.  Personally, I would want to see bloody mist-borne killer tentacle parts, but that's just me.

The group splinters after this scene.  Six or seven people stay reasonable (read: the mist is dangerous, so let's wait this one out), a few more choose to be skeptical about the monsters and make a run for it (bad idea) and the rest apparently become early apocalyptic Christians, led by Marcia Gay Harden.  I've got nothing against religion or the Planter's products that can come with it, but people going from normal to "it's-the-end-of-the-world-let's-sacrifice-a-child" in under 48 hours is a bit more than I can chew.  There's a smaller contingent that just commit suicide.  As the plot progresses, Thomas Jane and his friends confront threats from the mist and from their fellow townspeople and are forced to blah blah blah.  Do you really want the details?  You know they have to go out in the mist eventually.  The movie's called The Mist, after all, not Waiting Patiently For the Mist to Evaporate.

As the movie goes on, this movie's logic gets a little lost.  Thomas Jane and co. change their tactics as it suits them.  They want to stay in the grocery store, where it's relatively safe.  But, when someone is clearly going to die, they go out into the mist to reach the pharmacy next door.  Sure, it's heroic, but the tentacle monster should have been all over them, but wasn't.  Instead, the monsters switch types throughout the film.  First, it was spiked tentacles, then prehistoric-sized bugs and mini-pterodactyls, then big spiders and later mammoth sized monsters.  No one ever says the words "monster" or "dinosaur" in this film, though.  That is hard for me to believe.  There is no reason given for this evolution, if that's what it is.  The monsters could just be taking turns, for all we know.  I hate that the film makes a half-assed attempt to explain where these creatures come from (another dimension, FYI), but never tackles the issue of why they only get attacked by one monster type at a time.

I get the basic premise of this story.  Individuals are reasonable, but groups are irrational.  Or, if you like the story, you can argue that it is about the lengths that ordinary people will go to under extraordinary circumstances.  What.  Ev.  Er.  That doesn't excuse the carelessness of this plot/script.  Frank Darabont has done an excellent job adapting Stephen King's work for the screen before and has done a good job directing those same films (The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile), but here he comes up short.  You can blame the source material, but Darabont could have changed anything he wanted to.  To be more realistic, he could have had the townspeople spend a longer time in the grocery store.  All you need to do is put "Day 3" up on the screen, kill some people with giant spiders, and then fade to black for "Day 11," when some characters commit suicide.  I can buy that.  But the degree of hopelessness in this film in such a compressed period of time is disheartening.  On the bright side, I never cared about any characters, so there's no problem when they die.  So, you win some and you lose some.

The ending to the movie is a little controversial because it deviates from King's original short story.  It shouldn't be a problem for fans of King in general or the story in particular; King signed off on the new ending, adding that he wished he had thought of it first.  I won't give the ending away, but I will say this: if you watch the movie and are enjoying it, this ending will seriously upset you.  If, like me, you thought this movie could fertilize your garden, then the ending might elicit a chuckle.