Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The World's End (2013)

13»

Comments

  • #102
    cjragoo
    Registered Users Posts: 27 ✭cjragoo


    Thought it was absolutely w*nk but loved Hot Fuzz.


  • #103
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,495 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    nyarlothothep wrote: »
    Simon Pegg's character Gary King was interesting. Gary was reminiscent of that annoying sidekick character in Lesbian Vampire Killers with his antics (who smashes his friend's phone to pieces for no other reason than that the writers thought the audience would find it funny). However by contrast Gary's insane shennanigans don't jar, he's not irritating and certainly not one dimensional, he just wants to relive that one moment from his life at all costs. He is meant to be stupid, irresponsible and selfish, almost a paragon of the human race's failings yet he's likeable in the sense that he's ultimately not a bad person and somewhat unfortunate as his own worst enemy, somewhat like the human race.

    My problem with this movie was that I get what they were going for, but that they went too far. I get that we were supposed to see Gary King as this tragic character that we eventually come to sympathise with despite his flaws, but they made him such an odious little tit that for me such a point never came.

    He never became likeable, he actually is just a bad person and every point in the film reinforces that, he is a total cock from start to finish.

    There is no redemption there, he treated people like dirt as a kid, he lied and manipulated his friends into the reunion for his own selfish reasons, when all the trouble started he put his friends at risk so that he could continue his stupid pub crawl, he ended the world because he was a whiny little bitch to the network, and at the end of it all he has retreated to his own little fantasy and is still being a dick to people for little reason.

    The movie may have been written from an alcoholics self loathing point of view and it is very successful in presenting such a character, unfortunately it failed completely in giving us anything past that.


  • #104
    eviltimeban
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭eviltimeban


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    My problem with this movie was that I get what they were going for, but that they went too far. I get that we were supposed to see Gary King as this tragic character that we eventually come to sympathise with despite his flaws, but they made him such an odious little tit that for me such a point never came.

    He never became likeable, he actually is just a bad person and every point in the film reinforces that, he is a total cock from start to finish.

    But who said it had to? At what point did they say "this is Gary King's redemption"? The point for me was when he shouts "it's all I have" when questioned at the end about his motives. He was a tragic character, who never got over the past. And that makes him far more interesting, almost Shakespearian.

    It would've been too obviously to make him likeable at the end, and have everyone like him. That's what happened with the David Brent movie, and it suffered as a result. I like the fact that Gary King remained "Gary King", for better or (mostly) worse. We all know someone like that.


  • #105
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,495 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    eviltimeban wrote: »
    But who said it had to?

    The person I responded to said he was likeable and "not irritating". I responded with my opinion.

    Frankly, if the directors weren't going for that redemption dynamic on any level then they made a serious misstep. They had a main character who was a total dick from start to finish and in my opinion the film suffered for it.


  • #106
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,031 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    bucketybuck wrote: »
    The person I responded to said he was likeable and "not irritating". I responded with my opinion.

    Frankly, if the directors weren't going for that redemption dynamic on any level then they made a serious misstep. They had a main character who was a total dick from start to finish and in my opinion the film suffered for it.
    Well, I thought they were, with that final scene of Gary and his new posse: in the bar, ordering five waters. :cool:

    Death has this much to be said for it:
    You don’t have to get out of bed for it.
    Wherever you happen to be
    They bring it to you—free.

    — Kingsley Amis



  • #107
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Well to be fair, it's only a trilogy in the thinnest, most abstract sense

    There is no "trilogy".

    I do wish film makers would stop calling a random trio of films that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other trilogies.

    Glad to see the were others who weren't that big on this film too. Never though much of it myself.


  • #108
    nix
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,917 ✭✭✭nix


    Tony EH wrote: »
    There is no "trilogy".

    I do wish film makers would stop calling a random trio of films that have nothing whatsoever to do with each other trilogies.

    Glad to see the were others who weren't that big on this film too. Never though much of it myself.

    Who else does it? :confused:

    Anyway, there is an amusing story and reasoning behind why they're called the cornetto trilogy :rolleyes:

    So with that, technically they are related :P

    Chill the bap Tony, eh? :)


  • #109
    Tony EH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,542 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    John Carpenter calls three unconnected films a trilogy.

    Kevin Smith too. But at least there's some characters returning in those, but they don't really have anything to do with each other.

    Bergman's films from 61 to 63 are called a trilogy (although I don't think they were called such by him)

    I guess I just don't get the point.

    And baps are best served hot. ;)

    Back to the Future I, II and III....

    ...that's a bleedin trilogy. :D


  • #110
    branie2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,305 ✭✭✭✭branie2


    The three Left Behind films deal with the end of the world before it comes


Advertisement