After the splendid buzz and largely positive reviews comes the hand-wringing: Why wasn’t Scott Pilgrim vs. the World a huge box-office hit? It opened fifth this weekend, after The Expendables, Eat Pray Love, The Other Guys, and Inception — two fellow newcomers with lousy reviews, and two movies that a lot of people had already seen. The commentators who were recently applauding the American public for being smart and making Inception #1 three weeks in a row have now returned to their default “moviegoers are idiots” position.

Scott Pilgrim‘s .6 million isn’t abysmal, but it’s in stark contrast to the enthusiasm that the film’s admirers have for it. People are tweeting about having seen it two or three times already; apparently that’s not enough to compensate for the people who aren’t seeing it at all. You can usually count on glowing reviews, months of hype, and an eager fanbase — even a small one — to produce an opening weekend better than this. People are comparing it to Kick-Ass, but that film had a million debut.

So why didn’t Scott Pilgrim do better? Could it be that Michael Cera has finally worn out his welcome as the awkward young man he’s been playing ever since we met him? The movie is based on a series of graphic novels; perhaps moviegoers thought it was only for the comic-book crowd?

Or maybe the film’s concept wasn’t explained very well. Looking at the trailers, it’s hard to tell what kind of movie it is. Superhero? Comic book? Young romance? Teen comedy? It’s actually all of those (and more), but that’s hard to convey in a 30-second spot. Movies like The Expendables and Eat Pray Love, on the other hand, are pretty easily defined, and have hugely recognizable stars to boot. (In the case of Expendables, a large cast of famous people is all it has.)

Let us know why you think Scott Pilgrim didn’t conquer the box office. Feel free to elaborate in the comments. Then feel free to go watch Scott Pilgrim.

I’m neither hip nor cool. If you rounded my age up you’d hit 40 and if you asked me if I’d read the Scott Pilgrim novels I’d have said “Scott what now?” I have no interest in what’s hot or cool or popular at Hot Topic these days, I’m absolutely clueless about current pop music, and I couldn’t care less what’s “trending” on twitter at the moment. In other words, I’m old. The maniacal new romantic comedy Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is not exactly “geared” to my “demographic,” and aside from the fact that I like the director and several cast members, I had no real rooting interest in the project one way or another.

Then I watched the film, and what I saw was one of the purest, sweetest, funniest, and most dead-on accurate portrayals of “young male in love” syndrome that I’ve ever seen in a cinema. One need not be a hip youngster or a seasoned film critic to see what’s going on beneath the surface of this powerfully entertaining movie — but it certainly helps to approach this strange little experiment with an open mind and a youthful heart. Anyone who dismisses this film as youth-pandering video game ephemera simply isn’t looking closely enough.

Directed with a stunning amount of wit and energy by Edgar Wright (he also brought you Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz), Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is about an average young Torontonian who falls madly in love with a wide-eyed but slightly melancholy girl named Ramona Flowers — but poor Scott has to withstand so much more than just building up the courage to ask for a date. As it turns out, Ramona actually kinda digs Scott, but let’s just say this lovely young gal comes with a lot of old-school romantic baggage.

As in: she’s got seven “evil exes” that Scott must defeat before he and Ramona are able to move forward with their delicate love affair. Plus he also has to contend with a pair of excitable ex-girlfriends, a group of intermittently supportive pals, and a whole bunch of emotional barbed wire to climb through. On paper, it sounds like a pretty standard rom-com — aside from the seven evil exes that Scott has to fight using martial arts, video game power-ups and rock music, I mean.

If ever there were a movie that will appeal to full grown adults who are still intent on retaining some true “childishness,”Scott Pilgrim is it. On the surface it’s all video game references and witty quips and movie geek in-jokes — but (barely) hidden beneath the flick’s addictively colorful exterior is a surprisingly insightful analysis of what happens to a young guy when he’s in love. On the screen we get to enjoy seeing Scott Pilgrim do battle with ex-boyfriends both handsome and threatening, but that’s not really what we’re watching at all. The canny screenplay (adapted from the book series by Bryan Lee O’Malley) makes it exceedingly clear that we’re watching actually one sweet kid do battle against … insecurity, uncertainty, and the paralyzing fear of being rejected by a beloved female for someone “cooler.”

Sure, the movie happens to mine this subtext early (and fairly often), but Wright and company take a gleefully enthusiastic approach to the material; the subtext complements the surface fun remarkably well and, better yet, vice versa. Taking smart material and then packaging it in such a strange movie is a big risk, and it may end up hurting Scott Pilgrim vs. The World at the box office, but I’d be willing to wager an arcade full of quarters that this flick will enjoy quite a healthy shelf life among the young / young-at-heart who’d like to see a romantic movie that delivers such personal, poignant ideas with an endearingly cockeyed grin. And lots of crazy fighting.

Now that I think about it, I may in fact be the perfect age to fall for a movie like this one. I’m old enough to know what heartache feels like, and I’ve sure as hell been in Scott Pilgrim’s shoes a few times, but I’m also still young enough to appreciate this film’s frenetic pace, constant video game references, and amusingly ass-kicking action bits. Mr. Wright’s odd little adaptation manages to be sweet, smart, slick and silly all at the same time, and speaking as only one old man: I think this flick is a welcome breath of fresh air in a sub-genre (the, ugh, romantic comedy) that could use a hundred similar breaths of fresh air.

And ladies, keep this in mind: as insane as Scott Pilgrim vs. The World gets (and boy does it get crazy), the film is still a powerfully accurate portrayal of what goes on inside the brain of a smitten and jealous young man. Trust me, it is.

We’ve entered the dog days of August and the summer movie season is winding down. But, there’s one major battle left to be waged in multiplexes across this fine land this weekend. That’s right, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World is set to square off against The Expendables. Michael Cera goes toe-to-toe with a bevy of 80′s action icons led by Sly Stallone himself. It’s steroids against scrawny guys. Explosions versus videogames. Comedy taking on action. Who will win, dear readers? That’s the question we ask you tonight.

This one looks too close to call at the moment. Both films play on a strange kind of nostalgia. The Expendables reminds many of us when guys like Stallone and Schwarzenegger ruled the summer box office — a time when the arms race wasn’t only about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but about who had the bigger biceps. A simpler time, where might made right and even the most brutal acts of violence were cool so long as you offered a great catch phrase after dispatching your enemy. It’s going to be hard to beat a film featuring Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, and Mickey Rourke. That’s like the dream team for action movies.

Not to be outdone, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World plays on our videogame nostalgia, our love of comic books, and our penchant to root for the underdog. Edgar Wright’s adaptation of a comic book series looks be very stylish, clever, and most of all, funny. Michael Cera may not be sporting a six-pack and oiled up pecs, but he’s still gotta face Ramona Flowers’ seven evil exes if he wants to win the heart of the girl of his dreams. Pilgrim looks set to appeal not only to a younger generation of fans, but those of us still in touch with our inner doofus.

I can’t possibly guess how this might all play out, but I do know one thing … there’s a dark force lurking in the shadows while these two titans battle to the death, a film so evil and menacing that it simply cannot win the weekend no matter what. Yes, I’m talking about Julia Roberts’ Eat Pray Love. Based on a novel by Elizabeth Gilbert, this film finds Roberts fed up with her life. What does she do? She goes off on an around the world trip to find herself, naturally. Talk about stretching my willing suspension of disbelief …

What are you going to see this weekend? Can Stallone and his band of old dogs recapture the glory of the 80′s? Does Scott Pilgrim have the kind of multigenerational appeal that will pack theaters? Or will Roberts push another chick flick to the top of the Hollywood heap? Vote below and share your thoughts in the comments section.

As this summer season has repeatedly proven, some movies produce odd, unexpected, and often deeply polarizing reviews. But while it’s certainly the onus of any critic to protect his or her integrity and defend that reaction, there are some of these movies whose reviews I’d argue are really just kind of wrong, while others, no matter how extreme or opposite, are probably all equally right. And Scott Pilgrim vs. The World decidedly falls into the latter category.

Although the film is a glorious celebration of video games, a sweet little twentysomething romance, and at its most intimate, a subtle and smart coming of age story, Edgar Wright’s adaptation of the beloved graphic novel series of the same name is going to generate as many pans as it does praise, primarily because some viewers may feel it cuts out a deeper emotional connection in the service of rendering some of the most razor-sharp pop-cultural specificity in recent memory. But even though I can’t help but pre-emptively understand if some of my colleagues argue that it’s too generationally narrow or even attention-deficient to leave a lasting impression, I really, really liked Scott Pilgrim, and think that it’s one of the most technically astounding and yet personally resonant movies of the year.

Michael Cera plays Scott Pilgrim, a dubiously-employed 22-year-old who entertains rock star fantasies as the bassist of The Sex Bob-omb and entertains a fun if frivolous relationship with an underage girl named Knives Chau (Ellen Wong). After a dream mysteriously introduces Scott to Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), he devotes every moment of his waking life to meeting her for real, and manages to begin a furtive romance with her even though he can barely bring himself to break it off with Knives. But after a series of Ramona’s exes pay the lovesick bassist a visit promising to kill him unless he leaves her alone, Scott is forced to fight for the woman he loves, and just maybe learn a little something about himself in the process.

As far as deadpan hipster comedies are concerned, Scott Pilgrim is the Godfather of the genre – a massive, sprawling epic that builds and builds while offering just enough ironic asides to make fully sure that no one involved is taking themselves too seriously. And indeed, Michael Cera has played a variation of this character before – several of them, in fact – and he sometimes fails to provide the resilience and indefatigable determination (instead contributing his trademarked Charlie Brown-style feckless optimism) that Scott needs to see his romance with Ramona through to the end.

But what’s most surprising is how the movie sneaks up on you, and how it seems to know that these are its shortcomings, particularly at the beginning of the story. That I was initially bored by his dating life with Knives feels intentional in the context of the film’s ending, and that he is sort of infuriatingly inactive becomes an integral part not only of the character but his eventual journey, both physical and emotional, as he navigates adversaries and obstacles of both varieties.

Cinematically, director Edgar Wright continues to grow by leaps and bounds with each film, and here his mastery of technique pioneered by others finally and firmly becomes its own style. Although he uses filmmaking forebear Sam Raimi’s director of photography, Bill Pope, their work together resembles the source material from which they borrowed inspiration – including video games, action movies, and of course, comic books – rather than The Evil Dead or any other movie, for that matter. The action sequences are exhilarating, inventive, and best of all, based directly in the characters that are clashing with one another, and Wright juggles the physical, emotional and the cinematic elements of these scenes effortlessly.

That said, Wright’s breakneck editing and pacing makes Michael Bay look positively pastoral by comparison, and it’s probably here where Scott Pilgrim may suffer from many of its most passionate criticisms. I was certainly never lost in the filmmaking flourishes, even when Wright would cut breezily through several locations over the course of a single conversation, or chop up the action into bits so fine they looked almost like the ones and zeroes that provided the animators with their raw materials. But this is resolutely a film for a generation of moviegoers that is acclimated to music video-era storytelling, one less interested in formalism (much less classicism) than the sum total of a scene’s emotional weight or energy, and it may turn off folks who want something that’s subtler, more reflective, or even just a little slower.

It’s because of Wright’s virtuoso control of this technique that he may be the best young filmmaker of his generation; while he can deconstruct and reinvent action conventions in the blink of an eye, he also pays close attention to each scene’s payoff, and foregoes flourishes that are purely visual or visceral. The problem is, of course, that he’s so style-heavy as a director that his work seems completely unrestrained, but that style is employed so judiciously that it never feels self-indulgent or unwarranted. And even more surprisingly, he uses it as both a realization of and disguise for the core of the story, so that when Scott comes to his final realization it plays like a genuine epiphany, and forces the audience to reflect upon the film as not only attempting but executing something more substantive than a cinematic video game where the stakes begin and end with the affection of his dream girl.

Again, however, this film isn’t going to be for everybody, and no matter what their reasons may be on paper, it won’t just come down to them being “out of touch.” Evidenced by this adaptation, the Scott Pilgrim comic book is itself a sweet-spot of wish-fulfillment, real insight and pure fun, and the convergence of those elements in this way for a generation who responds to the source material is something that isn’t going to connect with everyone. It doesn’t need to, and in some ways, it probably shouldn’t.

In which case, generational markers are often as important as they are overlooked, and not unlike a Blade Runner or Bonnie and Clyde, this seems destined to be a film whose impact is measured in years rather than weekends to come, and with more analysis than a casual, convenient dismissal, or even an immediate, balls-out proclamation of its greatness. (In the meantime, it seems destined to spawn imitators and launch filmmaking careers left and right, not to mention provide a theme or point of would-be inspiration for plenty of real-life romances.) But even without an immediate connection to its light speed sensibility or the pop culture benchmarks it both celebrates and satirizes, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an ambitious, one-of-a-kind, fully-realized, smart, sensitive and satisfying work of cinema – and one so confident in its execution that being hated by some is scarcely more than another battle en route to really being loved.