Starring Simon Pegg & Nick Frost
Directed by Edgar Wright
Rated R
Story: 3 / 5
Direction: 5 / 5
Acting: 4 / 5
Visual: 5 / 5
Overall Rating: 5 / 5
Explanation of rating categories appears at the bottom of each review posting.
The World’s End is the third
installment of a trilogy (that’s not really a trilogy) which started with 2004’s
Shaun of the Dead. In the same vein
as its predecessors, it’s a personal story set against an incredible backdrop. The
story centers on Gary King (Simon Pegg) who has never really moved beyond his
end of high school days. Back then he ran with a close-knit group of friends
who had wild drinking adventures and thought they ran the place. Fast forward
twenty or more years. His friends have all moved on and become successful, but
he wants one last shot at completing the perfect night, drinking at all twelve
pubs in a sleepy town where they grew up. So he gathers his friends together
(grudgingly) and they return home.Story: 3 / 5
Direction: 5 / 5
Acting: 4 / 5
Visual: 5 / 5
Overall Rating: 5 / 5
Explanation of rating categories appears at the bottom of each review posting.
That is just the setup to a brilliant premise that just goes off
the f**king rails at the very end. I don’t want to get into spoiler territory here.
The writing is brilliantly clever. The story is strong and endearing, but in
its final ten minutes just turns into absolute schlock. Wright and Pegg are
smarter filmmakers than this. They weren’t sabotaging their own work, this was
intentional, but to what end I don’t know. Anyone who has seen the film will
know what I’m talking about, and I’d love to hear some thoughts on why it ended
the way it did. If not for this ending, if they went for a more traditional
resolution, I wouldn’t even hesitate to give this five out of five in the
writing category. But that ending is so baffling I just don’t know what to
think.
The direction here is absolutely top notch. I’m getting a little
into the visual category as well, but I’m not at all exaggerating when I say
that Edgar Wright is proving to be one of the best action directors of our age.
The combat gets a little unbelievable, only in the sense that a bunch of dowdy forty-somethings
shouldn’t be moving the way they do, but it’s all clear, exciting, and edited
to perfection. It’s the Matrix style of fancy moves and smart cuts meets the
original Indiana Jones, where every punch made sense and you understand the
mechanics of what’s taking place.
Much like Shaun of the Dead
the acting is what elevates this otherwise schlocky material. The characters
are well written and the actors reach in to give them warmth and depth. The
acting isn’t perfect. The performances aren’t overwhelmingly moving, but they’re
better than this type of material traditionally receives.
Having already mentioned the editing and fight choreography, the
entire look of the film is perfect. As he did with Shaun and Hot Fuzz, Edgar
Wright manages to capture an England often overlooked by filmmakers trying to
reach non-British audiences. Where most film makers would choose to flood their
film with establishing shots of London and tube stations, he goes for the
suburbs or rural town centers. He manages to portray a land thousands of miles
away from the United States, but populated with a life not entirely foreign to
us. I wouldn’t dare insinuate that his intend is to create a film Americans
will love. Far from it. He creates films he loves. And it shows.
Would I recommend this film? If you liked Shaun of the Dead and Hot
Fuzz, without question. Even if you’ve never seen those films, please check
this one out. Maybe leave when the car is driving away at the end (spoiler? I
don’t think so).
Explanation of Ratings
All ratings are on a 5 point scale where 1 is the lowest possible score. A score of 3 indicates the film was simply effective in this regard. A score of 5 indicates perfection in a given category. The overall rating is a simple average of the four scores.
- Story
-- How well the film was written? Did the story make sense?
Were there plot holes? Was the dialogue natural for the
style/genre?
- Direction
-- How well was the film put together? Did all of the elements come
together properly? How was the pacing? Was the tone consistent
and effective? A subcategory of this would be editing, but for the purpose
of these reviews it is combined into one category.
- Acting
-- How good were the performances? In a drama did the lead
actor/actress draw the audience in? In a comedy where the performers
funny? This is an amalgam score of all the performances in the
piece. A single great performance can elevate the entire score, but a
bunch of bad performances can just as easily bring it down.
- Visual
-- How did the film look? If there were visual effects were they
used appropriately and did they look good? Did the overall look
enhance the telling of the story?
No comments:
Post a Comment