The World’s End (2013) – Review

Review: The World’s End is a very entertaining and funny action-comedy. The film is about five friends, led by Gary King, who return to their hometown of Newton Haven to try and complete an epic pub crawl that eluded them twenty years earlier. However, as they make their way from bar to bar, they start to notice that there is something off about the town’s people.

The film completes writer-director Edgar Wright and co-writer Simon Pegg’s Three Flavors Cornetto trilogy. Like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, The World’s End succeeds chiefly as a comedy. Wright and his cast have good command of both physical and verbal jokes. To some extent, the film’s physical comedy and stylistic aspects play a bit like a cartoon – but given the heightened sense of fun that the film’s prologue and tone create, this cartoony feel works very well. And, it also opens the narrative up to go in ridiculous directions (which it does).

The action in the film works as well. It is entertaining and holds the attention of the audience, but it is also subservient to the comedy. Everything about the staging and follow through suggests that the fight scenes are being played for comedic effect. Yet, what is interesting (and consistent with Wright’s other films in the trilogy) is that the stakes in this film are much graver than typical action comedies. The character’s lives are actually at risk here. But, at the same time, what could be used for great dramatic tension and emotionally compelling scenes falls a bit flat because the film has already fully committed to being silly. Thus, to some degree, dramatically, the film works against itself a bit. The tone remains that of an exaggerated comedy and never fully shifts into that of a more gripping action thriller type film (that is still funny – an example is the Wright produced horror comedy Attack the Block; it is a horror thriller with palpable stakes that is also really funny).

The strongest aspect of the film is probably its characters (particularly Gary King and Andy Knightley) and their comedic portrayals. As funny and entertaining as the film is what makes it great is its characters. They pull the audience into the story. Regardless of where the story takes the audience, the characters still ground the narrative because the audience wants to see them finish the pub crawl and survive. It is somewhat surprising that Wright could get an audience to care about a group of men finishing a pub crawl on more than a superficial level, but that is the brilliance of his script, the characters, and performances. Gary is an antihero, and not really likable, but his charisma is infective and his drive to find something of meaning in his life is something the audience can really grab onto and get behind.

While the film is structured very well and the pacing moves briskly, the third act of the film sort of putters out, holding the film back. The first two acts build all this great anticipation and tension leading up to what seems like an epic conclusion, but instead Wright undercuts all that with a reversal of expectations. It does work well in terms of comedy and does make sense on a character level, but dramatically is causes the film to stall and feel incomplete and maybe even unsatisfying on some level. It is a brave choice, from a storytelling perspective (and sort of reminds me of A Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), and maybe it works better upon multiple viewings, but that said the loss of all the dramatic tension and anticipation almost derails the film because the audience feels let down as nothing pays off emotionally. However, Wright does temper this somewhat by including a final action/chase sequence to end the film on an emotional high note (leading into the epilogue).

Much like Wright’s other films, small flaws hold The World’s End back a bit, but it is still a great comedy. One that is well worth seeing both for fans of Wright’s work and those who enjoy fun action comedies.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Edgar Wright has a wonderful cult following, as his films have an auteur-like pop style and are soaked through with cinematic, comic book, and popular culture references. It is a shame really that his films have never really found a mainstream audience. With The World’s End, I think Wright and Pegg have created maybe their most compelling lead character in Gary King. He is hysterically funny and incredibly charming (but more because he is on the verge of complete catastrophe and the audience cannot look away than in the classical sense of the word). In terms of The World’s End place in Wright’s filmography. Personally, it is my second favorite of his films behind Shaun of the Dead (and just ahead of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World). I am looking forward to seeing what Wright does with Ant Man (there is a rumor that Pegg might play Hank Pym).

Composer Steven Price’s score and cinematographer Bill Pope’s strong photography give the film a great action vibe, while production designer Marcus Rowland’s design plays more towards the comedic aspects of the film, as there are a number of fun sight gags. Price’s score musically elevates the expectations and anticipation of the audience by feeling like a score that would normally accompany a big action film. Pope is one of the best action genre D.P.s working in cinema right now. His work seems to add an extra level of excitement to the action set pieces, which the film greatly benefits from. Rowland’s design work is subtle at first, and Newton Haven looks like a typical boring English small town, but he sneaks in jokes here and there that really work well. Plus, the design of each pub and its masthead is fantastic.

The entire cast gives great comedic performances. Pierce Brosnan and David Bradley each provide funny moments in their small supporting roles. Rosamund Pike plays Sam, the romantic interest of two of the friends and the sister of another. She has great chemistry with Simon Pegg and their scenes are fantastic (something to remember for Ant Man maybe… hopefully). She has good comedic timing and plays off the ridiculousness of the narrative well. Eddie Marsan plays Peter, the dope of the group. He has some great moments, which he takes full comedic advantage of. Martin Freeman plays Oliver, a lightweight when it comes to drinking and Sam’s brother. Freeman really does good work when his personality suddenly changes. Paddy Considine plays Steven, a man who seems to always be second fiddle to Gary. He is at his best when he overplays the dramatic ups and downs of the night. Nick Frost plays Andy, Gary’s former best friend and heavy drinker who has reformed. Frost very nearly steals the film (and for some probably does). He is brilliantly funny. And Pegg plays Gary, the rebel who has just become sad. Pegg revels in the character, playing him big and it works wonderfully.

Summary & score: The World’s End is a fitting end to the Three Flavors Cornetto trilogy, as it encompasses the same style and tone as the other films, managing to be very funny with engaging action scenes. 8/10

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) – Review

Review: Jack the Giant Slayer is a fairytale adventure film that is not sure exactly who its audience is – children or young adults. The film is a somewhat new take on the classic story of Jack and the Beanstalk. Here, Jack is a farm boy who dreams of more. Jack sets off to town to sell his house and wagon for supplies to help his uncle manage the farm, but ends up returning with only bean, whereby he is berated by his uncle. Meanwhile, a young princess Isabelle also longs for more in her life. She runs away from her castle home. Caught in the rain, she takes shelter in a small farm house, running into Jack. His beans, not fully accounted for, get wet and a massive beanstalk grows into the heavens, taking the princess with it – though, Jack falls from the soaring house in the calamity. Awakening to find the King and his guard looking for the princess, Jack and a few of the King’s finest men scale the beanstalk to find Isabelle. However, they discover a land ruled by man-eating giants – giants that have longed to leave their kingdom to feed on the world of men. This is now a rescue mission.

I think growing up in the 1980s with films like The Princess Bride, Labyrinth, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, The Secret of NIMH, Time Bandits, The Witches (though, this did come out in 1990), Legend, The Dark Crystal, The NeverEnding Story, and the Disney animated features (among others – like George Lucas’s adventure trilogies: Star Wars and Indiana Jones) has preconditioned me to love adventure fantasy films (or at least have some sort of nostalgic reaction to them). Thus, Jack the Giant Slayer was something I actually wanted to see (despite my complete lack of trust in director Bryan Singer and the poor job that New Line Cinema did marketing the film). Watching the film, however, I noticed that it has a very uneven tone. It is not sure if it wants to be a kids’ movie (action, but with mild violence and nothing too scary and a silly sense of humor) or something for young adults (more intense action and violence, more mature relationships and sense of humor – to some extent). The film sorted wanted to be both, and thus did not really work for either. It is too violent and scary for kids, and tonally too geared towards kids for young adults. It seems like it wanted to be this generation’s The Princess Bride (although, lacking the charm and magic of that film) but also made for fans that grew up with The Princess Bride.

The film, originally titled Jack the Giant Killer, was initially intended to be R-rated, but then New Line Cinema decide to rework it for a broader audience (as is often the case with big budget films). The problem is that the tone just does not work now, as it still has elements of that initial R-rated film mashed together with more kid-friendly stuff. In some moments the film is silly with goofy characters and jokes (like Roderick’s – the film’s villain – sidekick Wicke or the main giant General Fallon having a second head that is only there for comical effect, as it speaks and acts in a goofy manner), while in other moments the film has characters being eaten, murdered, and engaged in violent situations – often these moments happen within the same scene. In an attempt to appeal to everyone, the film (generally speaking) appeals to no one.

However, getting back to my un-bashful love of adventure fantasy, there is still a lot to like in the film. And, Singer keeps the film moving forward with decent pacing. Singer also develops the lead characters well. Jack and Isabelle are easy to root for, because their story is relatable to the audience, or at least very familiar in its narrative language. The supporting characters fall mostly into genre archetypes, but that is fine for this sort of light entertainment. Singer’s action is also entertaining (just, probably not suitable for kids). Overall, I did enjoy the film – but its issues do limit it considerably.

In addition to its uneven tone, the film’s narrative structure felt a bit strange in terms of the villain’s arc. Roderick is presented as the film’s main antagonist in the first act. Isabelle is being forced to marry him, even though she does not love him (which is one of the reasons she runs away, if not the main one). And, he is presented as an overall bad guy (in sort of a kid’s movie way – he just looks like a bad guy). His plan is to use the magic beans and a magic crown to not only bring the giants down from their kingdom, but also rule over them – using them to take over the world. He is clearly the character to root against. Yet, once the narrative gets up to the world of the giants, the main giant General Fallon is presented as the actual main antagonist and Roderick is merely only a catalyst to introduce the giants. But if that was the case, Roderick should have done his business in the first act so the audience could invest sooner in the struggle between Jack and Fallon. As it is, this antagonistic relationship does not really come about until about halfway through the film (and by then, the audience does not really care anymore).

The film also feels inauthentic in the way it treats Jack’s relationship with Isabelle. It goes out of its way to express that a princess can never marry a commoner (which Jack is), yet none of the characters frown upon the blatant budding of a relationship between them – even her father the King. Sure, he is grateful that he rescued her, but his seeming indifference to the complete collapsing of the governing social convention regarding his daughter feels off. Though, at this point, the narrative is so rushed that there is not really time to address barriers to Jack and Isabelle’s relationship.

The narrative is paced well enough, as Singer again keeps things moving forward and the film never feels like it is dragging. But, the structure of the story is the films weakest attribute. It has an overly long first act and rushed second and third acts. The characters and their relationships are not used to their full dramatic potential as well. This ultimately leaves the film unfulfilling both narratively and from a character perspective. Plus, the tacky add-on that ends the film is also laughable.

Jack the Giant Slayer is fun and entertaining, especially for fans of adventure fantasy films. However, it is encumbered by a multitude of narrative issues, holding it back from being among the genre’s better films.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Bryan Singer has now made eight feature films – some loved like The Usual Suspects and X2 (though, I would argue both are vastly overrated), but most disappointing. He continually makes films that have great potential and are indeed great in moments, but never come together as wholes. His next project is X-Men: Days of Future Past. As someone that really liked X-Men: First Class, I hope he finally reaches his potential (assuming it is there at all).

Singer works again with his frequent collaborators composer (and editor) John Ottman and cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel on Jack the Giant Slayer. Ottman delivers a good score that fits the adventure fantasy genre well, while Sigel’s photography is also strong. However, it is production designer Gavin Bocquet’s sets that really bring the world together. The overall look of the film is very much rooted in the classic genre pieces of the past. However, the animation (the film uses motion capture to create the giants) feels a bit out of place at times – but not enough to hurt the overall experience.

The cast is also a strong component of the film – maybe even the best part as the performances are good, and feel aligned with the genre (despite the uneven tone). Warwick Davis, Ewen Bremner (who is pretty funny), and Eddie Marsan are great in small supporting roles. Bill Nighy, as he always seems to, elevates General Fallon with his measured delivery in his voice-only role.  Ewan McGregor is a lot of fun as Elmont – the best of the King’s guard. He somewhat steals the film with his enthusiastic energy. Newcomer Eleanor Tomlinson is also a bright spot. She certainly has screen presence as Isabelle. It might have been more interesting to just see her adventure sans Jack. Nicholas Hoult is good in the film, but the character does not play to his strengths as an actor – playing characters with charisma, wit, some narcissism, and mischievousness to them. Here, Jack is too simple and good (and thus not that interesting).

Summary & score: Jack the Giant Slayer has a lot of grave narrative problem, yet still manages to be fun and entertaining (but only superficially). 6/10

Movie of the Week - The Illusionist

This week’s movie is The Illusionist (2006).

The film is about a magician who falls in love with a woman above his social standing in turn-of-the-century Vienna. He is also in conflict with the Crown Prince who is both corrupt and committed to forcing the magician’s love to marry him. Thus, the illusionist must use his abilities to not only win his love away but also thwart the evil Crown Prince. The film has a wonderful cast with extraordinary performances from Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti and Rufus Sewell. Jessica Biel and Eddie Marsan co-star and are good too. Along with the great performances the film features fantastic technical work from cinematographer Dick Pope (master work really), another classic score from Philip Glass and visually interesting set design and artistic work from production designer Ondrej Nekvasil. What makes this film great is director Neil Burger. He is able to garner strong performances, utilize his technical assets to their highest output, while creating a stylistically superb film (the narrative is great too). The film harkens back to early cinema in its visual style, which fits the time period of the film well. The film is a must see for cinema fans (it is a bit like that year’s film The Prestige). Check out the trailer.

The Illusionist [Blu-ray/DVD]

Sherlock Holmes (2009) – Review

Sherlock Holmes is a fun time at the theatre. The film lives and breathes on its characters, especially Holmes and Watson. Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law bring the characters to life, maybe not how one would expect, but they are amusing, have great chemistry and ultimately save the film from being just another mindless buddy Hollywood action outing. The issue with the film is the story and some of the characters are only there to set up the next film, which can still work, but here it creates some narrative structure problems. The ending of the film (the final showdown between Holmes and Blackwood, not the epilogue that follows it) seems to just happen, there is not sense of build up, no expectation, leaving the viewer feeling like there was more to come (and there is if you consider the sequel), but not so much in a cliffhanger way, more of a this story feels stunted and incomplete, thus it organically feels like there is more (but there is not, at least not with Blackwood). Guy Ritchie (who has made a series of bad films following his first two good films) must be pretty happy to have had such a great cast, saving him from yet another blah film. His visual style (slightly copied from The Hughes Bros.’ From Hell, but not quite as dark) works well, and Ritchie does use his camera well, though the editing is a bit awkward at times. Hans Zimmer delivers another very good score, which fits quite well with the tone and the material. Back to the performances, as they are the point, and why someone should want to see this, Downey Jr is nothing short of great, though he seems to have mixed a bit of his own oddball acting with a dose of Captain Jack Sparrow. Law, on the other hand, feels very much like a Ritchie character, and is played very well, complimenting Downey Jr’s work perfectly. Their chemistry alone is enough to build a successful franchise on. Rachel McAdams is good, but her character is fairly pointless, other than to set up the villain of the sequel. And Mark Strong, who is always good, really does not have all that much to do, but still makes a suitable villain, though the story could have used a bit more direct interaction between Holmes and Blackwood. Another issue, arising from the Blackwood character is that it was interesting and kind of cool that the dark magic seemed real, putting Holmes and Watson off their element, making the revel feel like a let down, and overall hurting the story. Eddie Marsan and Kelly Reilly are good in their small roles (it is nice to see Reilly get in a big American movie, I hope she gets more roles here in the future as she is generally very good). So at the end of the day, Sherlock Holmes is very entertaining, but hollow, surviving (if not succeeding) on the fine work of its actors. 7/10