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

The World's End (2013)

Options
124»

Comments

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,079 Mod ✭✭✭✭Say Your Number


    I went to see this tonight and really enjoyed, I had read a bit about it so I wasn't expecting another Shaun/Hot Fuzz, thought the group had a really good chemistry. Favourite bits:
    When the couple said the house too expensive and Gary asked 'how are you looking for' and the friend (can't remember his name) responded 1.2 million and Gary responds with 'F*ck off'
    I like how Gary was so pig headed that the aliens gave up trying to reason with him


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,151 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Really interesting reading the American response to this, it's basically rapturous. Pretty much all the major critics love it, and I've also seen directors like Rian Johnson and Darren Aronfsky take to Twitter to declare its greatness. I certainly think the film did some interesting things thematically, but given the (IMO deservedly) reserved response to it from viewers and critics alike here, it's fascinating to see the near-hysteria it's being met with elsewhere. Geographical variations still do exist, it seems.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,631 ✭✭✭✭Hank Scorpio


    Not a patch on the other 2 movies imo. Still a decent watch albeit the terrible ending. 6/10 for me


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I just watched this today, for the first time, seeing it in the light of what we now know about Simon Pegg's alcohol problems at the time. It's not a coincidence that his script has his character become manically obsessed with getting that last pint in, nearly oblivious to what's happening around him. The way he put it:
    Simon Pegg wrote:
    I felt like I was kind of telling people with that movie, because that’s what addiction is like. It’s like you have grown a second head and all it wants to do is destroy itself, and it puts that ahead of everything else – your marriage, children, your job.
    I think it helps that I'm familiar with classic science fiction, such as the workd of Asimov and Clarke, as well as more recent books such as The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There are subtle references to those throughout e.g. discussions about the nature of robots and how they perceive humanity hark back to Asimov, or Clarke's Childhood's End notion about humans needing to be rescued from themselves before they can "progress".

    One thing that struck me was that all the main characters have surnames that relate to royalty - King, Chamberlain, Prince, Page, Knightley - yet they're not the ones with the blue blood. :cool:

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    That's interesting reading, I hadn't heard that Pegg was an alcoholic but i had thought & said at the time of release the alcoholism angle seemed too raw and honest - beneath all the gags and invading aliens - to be 'just' another element of the story. Kinda saddening to see the theory was correct, and definitely colours the film in a different light (though still not sure what to make of the fact Peggs character effectively got to relive the glory days he yearned)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,296 ✭✭✭✭branie2


    I thought it was very good


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,087 ✭✭✭eviltimeban


    The three movies they've made have each been very special. It would be a shame if Pegg / Frost / Wright don't work together again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 868 ✭✭✭El Duda


    Easily the weakest of the three.

    Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz had layered comedy that really rewarded you on the rewatch. I was spotting subtle gags in those films after the 5th/6th watch.

    Worlds End has very little of that. I've only seen it twice and it suffered badly on the rewatch. Tbf it did have an incredibly high standard to live up to but it is strangely lacking in everything that made the other two so great.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Well to be fair, it's only a trilogy in the thinnest, most abstract sense that it was the trio of Pegg, Frost and Edgar Wright returning to collaborate; there's no actual story, tonal or structural throughline to be seen. And going by what was confirmed in later confessions, the script was obviously written from Pegg's pained, personal and emotional point of view, not some jaunty capper of an unofficial trilogy.

    Still not a great film, and honestly I forget it ever existed the few times it gets mentioned, but there's definitely a fairly large elephant in the room that acts as important context to the film.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,087 ✭✭✭eviltimeban


    World's End has loads of stuff that becomes more apparent on multiple viewings.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27 cjragoo


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,181 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,087 ✭✭✭eviltimeban


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,181 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,962 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    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:

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,967 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,909 ✭✭✭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? :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,967 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,296 ✭✭✭✭branie2


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


Advertisement