Review LXIX - The World's End

Review LXIX
The World's End (2013)

I remember when I first plopped down on my couch to watch Hot Fuzz. My British friend had mentioned it in passing in one of our conversations, so, of course, I checked it out. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and it started an Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost following. I proceeded to watch Shaun of the Dead and Spaced. I checked out Scott Pilgrim vs. The World once I heard Edgar Wright was attached to the project. I watched Paul because Simon Pegg and Nick Frost wrote and starred in the film. I was not short in extending myself to watching the work that starred these guys. While I didn't like Paul in the least, I was impressed with everything else. Thus when I saw that The World's End was coming out, the last film in the Three Flavours Cornetto triology, I made a date with a friend to watch it.

Gary King (Pegg) was the king back in 1990. Him and his friends - Peter Page (Eddie Marsan, Oliver Chamberlain (Martin Freeman), Steven Prince (Paddy Considine, and Andy Knightley (Frost) - attempted the Golden Mile, a pub crawl consisting of twelve bars. A minimum of a pint of beer per bar was part of the challenge, but, sadly, the group never made it to the end - that is, The World's End, the last bar. While Peter, Ollie, Steven, and Andy have moved on with their lives, Gary continues to dwell on the Golden Mile. He manages to convince everyone to regroup to finish unfinished business, but the Golden Mile turns out to be even more difficult than the gang recalls.

When the film was over, my friend and I remained oddly silent. That is, until I told him I hadn't particularly liked it. Subsequently, we scratched our heads trying to figure out what we hadn't liked about the film. We were mostly left speechless, only saying that it didn't seem on par with the other two films. Now that I've had many days to sit down and think about the film, I think maybe I can explain myself a bit more clearly.

I think the biggest issue I had with the film was the rush feel I got from it. I'd have to watch Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz again, but somehow, the development of the characters didn't seem as rushed as in this film. This makes sense given that we were mostly building on two characters in those films. The World's End takes on five. Two of the characters - Oliver and Peter - aren't built on as much, but I still take them as main characters given that they get an opening bit at the beginning of the film. The third - Steven - gets a bit more attention given that a love interest is established for him, Oliver's sister, Sam (Rosamund Pike), but still, I felt that whole love interest part rushed, and otherwise, he felt underplayed. Andy, well, he was established a bit more, but again, I didn't feel super connected with him. The only thing I had going for him was the "incident" between him and Gary that has left him a teetotaler (which he quickly ABANDONS *sighs*) and extremely bitter, but the way the situation is eventually "solves" seemed so farfetched to me that I quickly shut it down. And, finally, Gary the king. I'm sure Simon Pegg had great fun acting out this guy - oh, man, I know I would have loved it. Plus Simon Pegg sported those clothes absolutely brilliantly. But, again, I felt this lack of a motive for wanting to complete the pub crawl. I mean, sure, he's an alcoholic, but I would have preferred a deeper meaning to this guy. I would have enjoyed seeing how the last twenty years have been so devoid of everything, but instead, it was just, "I'm an alcoholic, and I want to complete this pub crawl."

The plot itself also seemed rushed, or, at least, random. We went from a regular drama to a science fiction film pretty quickly, but, then again, this seems en style with the other films. You know what, I'm willing to accept all the random bits thrown at us, even though I thought it didn't fit together well, but the deus ex machina ending of "screw this shit" just bothered me to no end. I don't want to spoil it, but seriously, it seemed idiotic. I get the whole premise of the film is going for a "body snatchers" idea, and the body snatchers represent the rejection of globalisation and this static lack-of-a-move in small towns, but then why the ending? Why choose an ending like that? It felt like the film was trying to address the significance of human existence, and it felt completely messy. This rushedness made me not appreciate the humour as much as I could have. And even then, I felt the jokes to be not as sophisticated as in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Some were, definitely, but others seemed not as much. Still, I'm not going to beat on it in that respect because the jokes were not incredibly stupid. I'm also not sure if maybe I didn't find them as funny because I was bothered with the plot overall. Still, though, if I couldn't appreciate the jokes, then what was the point?

I'd really like to watch the film again now that I understand what I disliked because I'm sitting on a rating of seven stars. I mean, really, the film was not that bad, but it was mediocre, in my opinion, and I expected so much more from Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost. Either I've gotten properly posh, or I was not in the right frame of mind when I watched it. Still, the soundtrack was fantastic. Thank you for that, at least!

Review XXXIV - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Review XXXIV
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

As I mentioned in my Dead Alive/Braindead review, I've only watched the first Lord of the Rings film. Though I have the series, I never got around to reading it, and I tried reading the Hobbit a while back, but I was too young, I believe, to fully understand it, so I gave up after chapter one. Of course, all this didn't stop me from watching the newest installment to the Lord of Rings franchine, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, starring Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman (I do not watch Sherlock, but I know of the obsession) as Gandalf and Bilbo Baggins, respectively. I can't compare it to the novel, nor even to the other films that follow in the series (except the first), so my opinions will be based purely on the film alone.

I missed a bit of the beginning of the film, but it starts off with Bilbo, a hobbit, as an older man (Ian Holm) telling Frodo (Elijah Wood) a story about the journey that changed him. This journey cuts to Bilbo as a young man (Martin Freeman) smoking on a bench in front of his house. Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), a wizard, approaches him and asks him if he'd like to participate in a journey. Bilbo automatically refuses and thinks this will be the end of the affair. Quite the opposite - that night, thirteen dwarves (the leader being Thorin - played by Richard Armitage) appear at his doorstep and ask him to be the burglar on their journey to reclaim Lonely Mountain, their home before it was taken from them by a dragon. Reluctant at first, Bilbo eventually agrees to help them, and so begins his unexpected journey.

I saw the film in 3D, but I'll tell you now that the three-dimensional effects were not extraordinary. I'd say skip out on it - it doesn't make it that exciting. However, the scenery was very beautiful - whether it be the made up villages or just the mountains and fields of New Zealand. Aesthetically, it was extremely appealing. I enjoyed just watching it for how beautifully it was put together.

The plot itself I thought was interesting. I mean, J. R. R. Tolkien's books are pretty well known, at least in the English speaking areas, so even if you never saw any of the films, you know that the point of the Lord of the Rings was to destroy the "ring to rule them all." The first film for the Hobbit is the prequel to the series so, though it is about the dwarves reclaiming their home land, it also shows the evil that was lurking prior to the events of the ring and its discovery of the masses. Anyway, the main plot itself is interesting. It's one of heroism and adventure, and if you love fantasy (and, most likely consequently, read the Hobbit), then you'll love it. I heard complaints that there were a lot of scenes that could have been taken out of the film because they weren't necessary for the main plot, and considering the film was ten minutes short of three hours, it would have been appreciated. I personally didn't feel the film was that long while I watched it, and I enjoyed every scene. Sure, some parts could have been shortened, but I don't know, I think it was still really enjoyable. It added to the authenticity of the film to the novel. However, yes, I can agree that the film could have been shortened for its cinematic release. The bit with Radagast the Brown was unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it, even if it was a short-lived part of the film. The acting was also really good - I especially enjoyed Martin Freeman's perfomance. Everyone played their part very well.

My friend also told me that they apparently mentioned the titles of the chapters every time a new one began. I can't confirm this, but if you're looking for an easter egg, this could potentially be one.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. I'd give it eight point five stars on ten. It could have been cut in length, and some parts were a bit peculiar being there given they are never followed up on. Nonetheless, I totally bought into it. Again, I can't compare it to the novel, but I really enjoyed the first film, and since I got to see it in theatres, I found I appreciated this one even more. Definitely worth a watch if you enjoy fantasy and amazingly gorgeous visuals!