Twilight for Boys
It’s Twilight for boys. It’s male adolescent sexual angst as “an epic of epic epicness,” as the poster tagline informs us… and as the movie matches in attitude and action. It’s the indulgence of everything a not-quite-adult, no-longer-a-kid manchild could want from women, in a package designed to appeal to not-quite-adult, no-longer-a-kid manchildren who would happily see their lives in the metaphors of the comic books, sitcoms, and videogames they were weaned on.
And that’s fine, really. If Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a touchstone of Millennial pop culture, as many of the fans of Bryan Lee O’Malley’s graphic novels [Amazon U.S.] [Amazon Canada] [Amazon U.K.] insist it is, there’s nothing wrong with that… and not with the clever pastiches of superhero stories and Nintendo low-res gameplay that director Edgar Wright deploys to tell the story of 21-year-old Torontonian Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera: Youth in Revolt, Year One) getting a life. (Which is represented, ingeniously, by him grabbing a 1UP graphic from the top of the screen.) Wright is a master stylist, as he demonstrated in his brilliant previous films, the zombie sendup Shaun of the Dead and the buddy-cop parody Hot Fuzz. Here, though, he’s using that style to tell a tale that is deeply off-putting for what it says about young men’s attitudes toward young women, and toward romantic relationships. In this respect, it seems, there’s nothing new about this new generation.
Of course young love can feel like an epic of epic epicness even if you don’t live inside a videogame. (And here’s a secret those still young may discover as they get old: love can feel epic in grayer years, too.) But the terribleness and the wonderfulness of falling in love is depicted here as an heroic battle against the gal a guy is supposedly in love with. Scott falls in love with roller-skating, punk-haired Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Live Free or Die Hard, Death Proof) at first sight, across a public space. He stalks her in a way that’s meant to be adorable, I suppose, if one that makes little sense; since when does Amazon dispatch its own employee messengers like Ramona to deliver stuff you order online? She is literally a dream girl — Scott dreamt her before he met her — so much a dream girl that she agrees to go out with him with no indication of what she sees in him, just so he’ll stop asking, and consequently falls for him… but that’s what dream girls do.
So far, it’s pretty much par for the idiotic course for idiotic romantic comedies: we hardly know nor like either of the would-be couple, but we’re stuck with them for at least another hour. But here’s the appalling twist: In order for Scott to continue dating Ramona, he has to fight — literally battle, videogame style — her “seven evil exes.” Ramona makes a comment about how we all have “baggage,” which is of course true. But these exes are not “baggage”: the first one is a boy she hung out with and kissed once in eighth grade. The others are mostly similarly benign past relationships that barely even rise to the level of “relationship.” (Of course, Scott’s idea of a “dating” is hanging out with a 17-year-old high-schooler [Ellen Wong] and grabbing a slice of pizza after school. Kissing is not even on the agenda.) What’s worse, the entire “battle of the exes” thing has been arranged by Ramona’s most recent boyfriend (Jason Schwartzmann: Fantastic Mr. Fox, Funny People), who really does seem evil. But why on Earth would the other exes go along with such a scheme unless they feel some kind of ownership of Ramona?
And why does Ramona go along with it? Is she not her own self to give or not as she pleases? She is a total cipher, a pretty blank slate upon which Scott can pour his desires but can only win hers not by anything he does for or to her, but by winning her from her exes. She isn’t free to bestow her affections: her affections belong to men and must be passed from one to another. Why isn’t she furious at her latest ex for concocting such a scheme? It’s bad enough that all the guys seem to have no compunction considering her a thing, a possession to be claimed. But why does she give in to that?
If Scott Pilgrim truly wanted to be about two young people navigating the hurts of their past to come together for a fresh start, then why doesn’t Ramona have to fight Scott’s exes… the latest of which seems pretty evil, too, at least on the curve this movie grades evil on? Why must her romantic past, meager as it is, be laid bare for his approval and vanquishing, yet he is not required to do the same for her? Worst of all, why does everyone involved take the whole thing so casually, as if this is to be expected from a man when embarking upon a new relationship?
I know, I know: It’s all supposed to be “funny” and “cute” and “lighthearted.” But for as long as “women as trophies, as prizes for men who do heroic deeds” has been an unfortunate trope of Hollywood, a movie has never been this blatant, this outrageous, this nonchalant about it. And while there’s lots that is indeed funny and cute and lighthearted — the always delightful Chris Evans’ (The Losers, Push) action movie star, one of Ramona’s exes, is a definite highlight — there is no sense of satire in the unmetaphoric winning of Ramona. All the style is nothing but a would-be “sweet” metaphor for men treating women as property… and woman acquiescing to being treated that way.
Watch Scott Pilgrim vs. the World online using LOVEFiLM‘s streaming service.
This is a terrible review and obviously you didn’t see the true meaning behind it. Stupid feminist.
Huh. You were actually a lot nicer to this than I was expecting you to be.
Seeing as I disagreed with you about how Kick-Ass portrayed Hit Girl, I’ll have to see for myself if Ramona’s really as submissive a character as you claim her to be. In the trailer she looked like she was doing some fighting on her own.
hahahahahahahahahaha
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
he… he…
cough
Still looking forward to seeing it since it’s my most anticipated film of the summer beating out even the likes of Toy Story 3 and Inception which I ended up both loving.
With that said, I’m slightly worried now. I totally agreed with you on Kick-Ass (and most movies in general), so I’m just hoping this is one movie where I can vehemently disagree with you on. Hoping for the best!
“Twilight for Boys” is the sweetest troll bait ever devised. No fanboy will be able to resist that glove slap. There might be a typo at “But for as long as women as trophies…”, better fix it before the next angry dood pops in to call you a feminist and belittles your weak, womanly grammar (if he actually reads that far).
Like RyanT, I’m looking forward to watching this one to see if the issues in the review are enough to defeat my weakness for classic gaming references.
There’s no typo there.
Gotta love the hahahahahahaha guy. Are we expected to read his mind to know what he’s busting a guy about?
Um, why are the majority of the people I know who are fans of the series all females, then? I find that assumption of yours more offensive than anything you thought you saw in the film. It’s a fun, silly, “comic booky” little action-romance, and I don’t really see why you’re looking for run-of-the-mill rhyme-or-reason in a story where a boy has to do battle with his girlfriend’s “evil exes.” If it’s “not your thing,” then fine. If you just don’t like it, or think it’s poorly made, then that’s fine too. But it feels like you’re trying to treat it like something that it’s not. I mean, if you look at a Picasso expecting it to adhere to the same standards and practices as a Rembrandt, your review of it is going to be poorly executed and just plain wrong, no matter how intelligent or experienced you are.
You know, I really do love and appreciate your Doctor Who content, but I really cannot take most of the other articles you write here. It’s not so much that I disagree – I have no issue with doing that – and it’s not that you’re a bad writer or anything like that. It’s that I often find myself going, “What the hell? How on earth did she get that out of it?” Too often, I have a remarkably difficult time grasping just where your head is at in any given review. It goes beyond simply disagreeing with you.
I’m sure I’ll just be flippantly disregarded as another troll, but that’s not my intent. You seem like a decent person and I don’t want to hurt or offend you, but I just really don’t know what to do with your blog anymore. Maybe you should really consider some of the criticism you’ve been receiving. I’m sure plenty of it is unwarranted, but some of it probably has a good deal of validity. Anyway, for now, I guess I’ll just stick to the Who posts.
I agree with Amanohyo… it is sweet troll bait.
She’s allowed to have her opinion, and it not a stupid opinion. Im sure Im going to absolutely love this movie, because Im a complete comic and videogame geek.
But at least she has a smart opinion about it.
Actually, Ramona is a clever tongue-in-cheek to the “princesses” of video games. The fact that Scott must “fight” for her (and the entire universe switching to video game mode) he has to have a prize, which is the love interest. What I love about the books and the storyline is that Scott (like any video game player/user) has more at stake than Ramona (the prize/end goal), and if he truly decided that it wasn’t worth it, he could just stop playing the game. And in a sense – Grow up.
As a girl gamer, I get the whole upset with the naked and fully chested video game vixen and weak and helpless princesses or loves. But I also know that it is a stereotype to be made fun of in a pop culture play on the very thing I love.
I have not read the comic book but I flicked thru it at the weekend and it seems that they came to the conclusion that Ramona has a problem loving herself but I can’t remember if they ended up together – I think the comic book was written at the same time as the film so no surprises they didn’t address that in the film.
Hope they don’t release EPL, Pilgrim and The Expendables on the same date in the UK cos then there’d be nothing to see at the cinema.
Oops. I see the “has been” now, my bad.
I’m not reviewing the comic book series. I’m reviewing the movie. Have you seen the movie?
Then you need to find a critic whose taste more closely align with your own.
Do I flippantly disregard people who make intelligent comments as trolls?
You don’t offend me.
What criticism should I reconsider?
It sounds like you’re suggesting that I need to alter my opinions somehow. Or that I should write things I don’t believe in order to appease some readers (while, presumably, doing injustice to those who are actually using my reviews to make decisions about movies because their tastes do align with mine).
I’m not really sure what you’re saying I need to do differently…
I didn’t see anything like that in the movie.
You didn’t see that the whole thing is playing with the codes and style of video games (amongst other things)?
Women shouldn’t be trophies in real life (though aren’t they sometimes? they don’t call them “trophy wives/girlfriends” for nothing), but they certainly tend to be in video games. The film/comics cleverly and amusingly transpose this into a romantic comedy.
Best movie of the year, I say.
“Twilights for boys” has already been coined, here’s the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-8kSszZwbI
The movie is not out yet, so it’s hard to say how the fanbase will end up being, but if it follows a trend similar to the comic it will likely have a good number of women fans.
Also Ramona doesn’t seem to be helpless, getting involved in a number of battles herself (I have seen a preview screening) and holding her own. Ramona is unsure of Scott at first but then later decides she wants to date him. It’s her exes that get in the way and are trying to be possessive of her. She even complains at one point that the reason she moved to Canada was to get away from the league of evil exes and to try to start fresh. Scott could go along and beat all the exes yet still lose Ramona if they don’t get along after all of that.
Also Scott’s relationship with Knives is a parallel of Ramona’s relationship with Scott. Ramona likes Scott because it’s a simple relationship to her different from her complicated relationships in the past.
In the end Ramona does have to fight Knives, as while she doesn’t turn quite into an evil-ex, Knives is being over-possessive of Scott in a similar matter that Ramona’s old exes are. The movie is definitely about dealing with relationship baggage, and Scott’s baggage is everywhere from Envy to their drummer Kim. That even if they aren’t attacking, previous relationships make up a part of what people are.
Also it’s a small thing but Amazon.ca using their own messenger doesn’t make any sense, but works in the context of the movie where their one messenger for the entire Toronto area rollerblades around on top of melting snow, using a Super Mario 2-like subspace to travel from place to place (which sometimes includes going through the dreamspace of Scott’s head).
“Do I flippantly disregard people who make intelligent comments as trolls?”
Yes. Increasingly often. Because you now have an an agenda that overrides your critical judgement on a regular basis. Ten years ago you would have loved this movie.
I was a different person 10 years ago.
Please do tell me what my “agenda” is.
That may well be true. What does it have to do with my review? Lots of women buy into patriarchal bullshit. Some women don’t even recognize it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
AHAHHAHAHA
Oh wait you’re serious? Let me laugh harder!
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why women should stay in the kitchen.
“NO FUN ALLOWED BOYS. RESPECT WOMEN BECAUSE WE’RE LIKE TOTALLY REALLY COOL.”
Pretty much.
….
Wow.
It’s an allegory.
Scott is already in love with Ramona. He idealizes her. She doesn’t need to “win” him over.
He is trying to get through to her so that she will be in love with him. He is trying to win her heart.
You mention that “so much a dream girl that she agrees to go out with him with no indication of what she sees in him, just so he’ll stop asking, and consequently falls for him”
That shift from “no indication of what she sees in him” to “consequently falls for him” is the whole movie. She is comparing him to her previous romantic experiences… when he comes out favorably, she is closer to falling in love with him.
The wonder of movie magic enables that comparison process to be visually represented as actual fights. What fun!
Allegories.
Movies are often allegories.
They work best when they are entertaining in their physical representation and interesting in their allegorical exploration.
Hey people, put a little perspective on this thing. Also realize that shoe-horning a several trade paperback epic into a 2 hour film isn’t going to do any justice to your source material. We’ve learned that films should be able to stand alone on their own merit; apparently this one does not.
That’s not going to stop me from seeing it, but unfortunately I will be entering the film with foreknowledge (for example, I know Scott dreamed of Ramona because she has some sort of weird super-power that enables her to travel through dreams because I read that in a review somewhere) that makes it easier to accept certain things in the film, rather than allow the film to fight for itself.
I’ll probably still watch Scott Pilgrim because I loved Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Michael Cera can be enjoyable to watch. I don’t get the Twilight reference. Is there a team Knives vs. team Ramona marketing campaign at Burger King?
Kevin,
The whole trophy wife/girlfriend thing is a reflection of how our society views and treats women. It doesn’t matter if they smart, successfull, talented etc – it only matters if they’re ‘hot’ by society at large. Hollywood plays into this to often, thereby enforcing the image. Unfortunately it is also far to often the goal in video games as well.
The big problem that I have with this review is that your trying to make this political. This is supposed to be a movie review. You don’t even talk about the acting or the effects. I understand you’re supposed to be a “flickfilosopher” (clever name[/sarcasm]). The problem is that you let one thing in the movie distract you from everything else. As another commenter points out, Ramona has tried to get away from her past. That’s why she moves to Canada in the first place. She gets involved in the fights as well. She’s in no way submissive.
There are some films that you really shouldn’t be looking for a deep meaning. This is one of those. It’s supposed to fun. Do you seriously expect a guy to really go out of his way and do this sorta thing to get a girl in real life? Hell no.
I find it insulting that you call this “Twilight for boys.” This is nothing like what Twilight has done. Twilight has bastardized an entire genre of films thanks to their so-called “vampires.” Scott Pilgrim is what comics are all about.
A film critic is supposed to approach every film objectively. Based on this review, I have serious doubts that you did.
There might be a typo at “But for as long as women as trophies…”, better fix it before the next angry dood pops in to call you a feminist and belittles your weak, womanly grammar (if he actually reads that far).
“There’s no typo there.”
Um, yes there is. Otherwise that sentence makes no sense.
Well, your review is partly built around that the movie is just “Twilight for boys” assuming only guys will like it. However, do you have a point that some women buy into the passive relationships. Still, once again using the comic book fanbase since the movie hasn’t been released, women seem to be attracted to Scott Pilgrim because it’s filled with strong women. When volume 6 of the comic was recently released a number of comic stores had costume contests and the most popular character was not Scott, but Ramona, often with girls making their own fake huge hammer, as they see Ramona as someone who kicks ass (which is exactly how one character at the party where Scott and Ramona meets, describes Ramona, another saying she has men dying at her feet). Meanwhile, Knives is a bit native teenager, but grows up and holds her own in fight in the movie. Kim Pine is a tough drummer who doesn’t take any BS from anyone. Envy Adams, is a bit more evil in the movie than the comics, where she’s given more of a back story to make her more human. However, even in the movie she’s ambitious, strong and is leading a successful rock band.
Even in the movie, Scott mentions to Ramona how she’s always been the dumper and never the dumpee, showing that she ultimately decides her fate. It’s just that she has men obsessing about her long after their relationships have ended.
To others criticizing MaryAnn for not liking the movie, while I’m a fan of the movie, I totally understand that it’s not a movie for everyone. It’s so stylistic that it’s the kind of movie that will click for some and not for others. I have no problem with her not liking it, I just disagree with some of her conclusions.
I don’t have a problem with the style of the movie. As I think I made perfectly clear in my review. I have a problem what it says about men and women and relationships.
How many times must I say this? I am reviewing the movie, not the books. Women standing around in the background saying snarky things does not make them strong characters. They’re still window dressing on Scott’s story.
But there’s no real sense of that in the movie. There just isn’t. Her *saying* this is no substitute for her having an actual journey as a character through the film.
Unfortunately, we are so used to male characters having personal journeys while the woman stand around waiting for them, and not changing themselves in the least while they watch, that we don’t see this as a problem. Well, I see it as a problem.
There is no typo in that sentence. Perhaps this helps:
Anyone think this will inspire creators of graphic novels to create one with a girl as the central character?
So what I’m taking away from this review is that uptight feminists aren’t going to like this movie because it doesn’t explore the deeper meaning of a relationship that takes place in this goofy-ass movie where video game concepts are a part of reality.
MaryAnn: “Anyone think this will inspire creators of graphic novels to create one with a girl as the central character?”
Fables, Persepolis, Bone, etc.
Why don’t you actually read some graphic novels?
Twilight for Boys!
Totally awesome! SPARKLY GAME-OBSESSED SLACKERS! MUST… WATCH…
/geekgasm
Okay I’m done with the snark. MaryAnn made relevant critique of the film. Having read the books, I *will* still go see it…
Terry Moore made Strangers In Paradise. It is honest-to-fucking-GOD very good. And has two girls as central characters.
Ah, we were all younger and more innocent back then. Remember when you wrote a positive review of The Phantom Menace, and I agreed with you?
(Well, you don’t remember me agreeing with you because I didn’t post a comment, but … nevermind).
You’re definitely writing a feminist critique of most of the movies that you see. There’s nothing inherently wrong with ascribing to a particular cultural movement, but I find reviews written through the lens of an ideology to be less interesting than those written from a more nuanced perspective, regardless of the merits of the ideology in question.
It’s easy to hold up a movie against a particular ideal, and give it a passing or failing grade; it’s more difficult (and more rewarding, I think), to grapple with a movie on its own terms, and produce a work of criticism that speaks about it along many dimensions, while noting its shortcomings in some aspects.
Regardless, while I know that there is Much Work to be Done re: women’s place in society, your blog has become more exhausting than provoking or interesting or stimulating lately. You’re turning into a bit of a curmudgeon, and that’s a little sad, as I read your blog more to pick up on gems that I may have missed, than hear about how dire the general state of Hollywood is.
Peace,
~ Patch
Oh, right! I totally forgot how Persepolis was the can’t-miss geek event of the summer! Silly me!
Guess I really need to spell everything out, don’t I?
If fans of the graphic novel like Ramona more than they like Scott, why does Ramona get the short end of the stick in this movie?
I’ll answer my own question: Because Hollywood thinks boys’ stories are more important than girls’ stories.
It’s true: Expecting women to be treated as human beings with lives as interesting and complex as men’s lives is a “deeper meaning.”
In other news: I am moving to another planet. I can’t take this shit anymore.
You seem to be the only person that seems to feel this way about the movie. Nobody else seems to have a problem with the movie’s portrayal of Ramona. Most consider her one of the film’s strongest characters. There’s just too many flaws in your argument that I cannot really accept.
You have yet to address my point as to why you do not talk about the other characters. Your so obsessed with trying to defend this position that you don’t even bother talking about the other actors and actresses who are apart of this film. Hell, you don’t even talk about Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the actress who plays Ramona, except mentioning her name on the side. Isn’t that what a reviewer’s supposed to do? Comment on the actor’s performances?
Okay, here ya go: Poor Mary Elizabeth Winstead does what she can with an unforgiving role. She should be the star of the film, but instead she has to take a backseat to boring, bland Michael Cera. If Ramona Flowers is as awesome and as interesting as everyone in the film insists she is, why isn’t the movie about her?
And how does that differ as an “agenda” from all the critics who simply embrace the unfair status quo without comment? Or is bending with the wind not an “agenda”?
HEY COMMENTERS.
RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU’VE SEEN THE MOVIE BEFORE YOU’VE COMMENTED ON THE REVIEW.
@me *doesn’t put hand up*
There are many films that do that, true, but at the same time, how many films directed at women have a hunky guy as the girl’s obsession? Seriously, the same can be said there as well.
It’s funny how, you know, the theme of the movie isn’t quite “guy saves the girl!” but more of, “guy needs to actually become a better person and get a life if he wants to get a girl.” Didn’t you see the ending? When Knives goes, “I’m too cool for you anyway.” Ramona was already a strong character, which is why Scott needed to also catch up to her in order to get her.
I am a female, at the age that Twilight fangirls seem to be common and Scott Pilgrim is MY Twilight.
You can’t make a movie to be an event. It simply becomes one or it does not. Don’t blame Scott Pilgrim for having a fanbase that Persepolis didn’t, but it sure as hell isn’t because of sex relations.
Why on earth is this particular film such a sensitive subject? I haven’t seen it yet, so hey, it may suck regardless of the source material. I’m just a little baffled by the visceral reaction.
If I’m reading the review correctly, MaryAnn’s saying this one plays out with the bland, shallow tropes of a romantic comedy, just with a veneer of video-game ‘reality’ over it. She didn’t like it; she wants more characterization from the characters not named “Scott Pilgrim”. If/when I see it I may disagree. Maybe it veered too much or drew too little from the source material — it happens. (I enjoy the Silent Hill video game series, but man, that movie stunk.)
(As far as girl-centric graphic novels, there are several, but I’ll definitely agree that the ratio — both in lead characters and authors — still skews towards men. It’s shifting, though: Alison Bechdel’s “Fun Home” and Satrapi’s “Persepolis” are the standouts that spring to mind.)
I don’t have time to read this whole comment thread, so sorry if this has been covered (doesn’t look like it).
As stated by the characters in the movie, Scott downgrades his date to “hanging out” because he knows the area and “there are actually reasons for you to hang out with me”. During that meetup, she decides Scott’s actually a fairly nice guy, and it turns into a sort-of date. She still decides not to sleep with him, and they make plans to hang out again. It’s not until he asks her “we are currently dating?” on the bus that she’s decided they’re actually going out.
She says during the movie that he’s the nicest guy she’s ever dated. She’s dating Scott for the same reason Scott’s dating Knives: it’s a cop-out, almost an intimacy-free relationship. Scott’s a Nice Guy, the kind of guy you generally knock, and that’s the idea. Scott and Ramona get closer than Scott and Knives, but Ramona is less jumping for Scott than escaping from Gideon.
Gideon puts that chip in her head — “he literally has a way of getting inside my head”. I assume he did that in his sneaky, slimy, Jason Schwartzman-as-villain way.
As for why she’s attracted to him, I’m sure Gideon can be charming.
I think it’s a metaphor for what people have to do in any new relationship: avoid letting the past ruin their future. Once Scott and Ramona have resolved their issues with Knives and Gideon, respectively, they’re free to try again, this time for real, rather than as part of the fallout from their previous relationships. Mild spoilers ahead. The film ends with Ramona heading off to fight her other battles, with Gideon out of the way, and Scott decides, having seen how Ramona helped him through his own past, decides to go with her, to return the favor.
The film is less about any relationship between Scott and Ramona than it is about the beginning of a relationship between Scott and Ramona. The outcome of that relationship is left unrevealed, but both of them agree to find out what happens next, because they do genuinely enjoy each other’s company.
No. But it’s interesting, isn’t it, how boys’ stories are mainstream but girls’ stories are, far more often than not, “niche.”
Of course I saw the ending. And I saw the rest of the movie too, which in no way shows Scott becoming a better person or getting a life. What do you think consists of Scott “becoming a better person”?
Yes, that’s wonderful! Women are perfect and don’t need to change.
But that’s not true. Women are not perfect. Women are as flawed as men are. A story in which women stand around being cool and perfect and unchangeable in the background whille they watch — or worse, inspire — a man to change and grow is not “a story about strong women.” It’s a story about a man as a human being and women as creatures up on a pedestal.
What about the rest of the cast? Kieran Culkin? Brandon Routh? Jason Schwartzman? Mae Whitman? Ellen Wong? Seriously, it’s not just those two! Even other reviews that have been critical of the movie take the time to at least acknowledge the other actors and actresses.
Oh, and I forgot to say that Ramona is as flawed a character as Scott is. Which is what makes it more compelling than garbage like Twilight. In Twilight, the male presence is perfect and the female has to come up to expectations. She has no characteristics or hobbies that didn’t relate to her relationship. In Scott Pilgrim, both of the main characters have flaws and it’s in working their way through these flaws that they finally learn how to make their relationship work.
THAT is how relationships happen in real life and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Uh, she’s reviewing the film which has not been released yet.
She is not speaking for the graphic novel (which I have also not read) which may very well be the smart, perceptive satire that you describe. If the movie falls flat of achieving this (which this review indicates) it will be another in a long line of poor comic-book-to-film adaptions. Nothing new.
I have no control over what other reviewers do or say or feel or think. And clearly you already know who else is in the film?
Or do you honestly think that a good performance by Kiernan Culkin makes up for, in my mind, my disgust with the overall experience of the film?
Please explain how the film depicts this.
Scott not being cowardly and unobservant of how his dating Knives is destructive to both his and her lives, realizing how his careless method of dealing with both of them was hurtful to both of them.
On a grander, simpler scale, learning how to act a bit more grown up in relationships, and how to account for other people’s feelings (not just Ramona and Knives, but also all three of the band members).