The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Having read the book of the same name by Douglas Adams, I was curious about the film of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. My flatmate has said that the film doesn't match up to the book at all and I would agree with this. My last post was about The Da Vinci Code and I talk about how difficult it is to adapt a book into a film that genuinely matches up. The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is another example of this.

It’s definitely not a bad film though. The book is very funny and keeps you captivated page by page. I think the focus with the film was to produce a visualisation of everything for the audience. In this respect the film does very well. I particularly liked Alan Rickman as Marvin the depressed robot. Alan Rickman has a voice that particularly lends itself towards the slightly depressed character. His manner in playing the character is absolutely spectacular and is completely how I imagined the character when reading the book.

Also, for me, Martin Freeman is perfectly cast in the role of Arthur Dent. It might just have been the fact that I knew it was Freeman who plays Dent when reading the book, but I could imagine him being completely comfortable as Arthur. His unique manner of acting lends him very favourably to this character. Martin Freeman has a way of delivering comedic lines which many people find entertaining and it is displayed very clearly in this film.

The other cast is very good too. I enjoyed Zooey Deschanel as Trillian. It’s is quite hard to tell the difference between an actor’s unique manner and them playing the same character in a lot of films. I thought there was nothing about Zooey Deschanel’s character that marked the performance out from anything else she’s done. I did like Mos Def as Ford, and there was a brilliant eccentricity about him in this film that perfectly captured the essence of Ford. I’m not sure what I made of Sam Rockwell as Zaphod though. It might just be because he played the character differently to how I imagined him, but I wasn’t convinced. He managed the zany character very well, but there was nothing that screamed ‘President of the Galaxy’ to me.

For me, it is the small parts that very successful actors and actresses have in this film that marks out how successful the book was. With Bill Nighy, Warwick Davis, Helen Mirren, Stephen Fry and John Malkovich all playing a role in the film it was obviously a big enough project to attract the big names. However, it was lacking something for me. While graphics are impressive for 2005 I felt a bit disappointed that the film added an extra scene at the end which wasn’t included in the book. I never like it when a film does this because the intention of the film is to adapt the book and by adding an extra scene at the end interprets the book in a way that the author may not have intended. It can also completely change the impact of the film. It is a shame that The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy does this, but ultimately I can get over it.

It’s never easy to adapt a book into a film, and especially with a science-fiction book there will always be people who don’t like it for one reason or another. Personally, although there’s no real problems with the acting or anything like that, I just don’t like that an extra scene was added. It doesn’t live up to the book at all and so I would read the book before you think about seeing the film. In all honesty, having read the book, I would avoid the film. 

The Da Vinci Code

When I read The Da Vinci Code I was immediately gripped by how fantastic it was. The book was absolutely impossible to put down and so I was naturally a bit sceptical about whether the film could live up to the success of the book. I don’t think it does, but it is a very faithful adaptation which I feel was made to capitalise on the success of the book rather than anything else.

For those of you who haven’t read the book and don’t know the story, firstly you really should. Secondly, the film is about a professor called Robert Langdon who is accused of murdering the curator of the Musee du Louvre. He becomes embroiled in a quest to find the Holy Grail with a woman called Sophie Neveu which takes a fair few twists and turns on the way. It is a thrilling story from beginning to end, but as with many films that build on the success of a novel, it doesn’t even come close to being as entertaining as Dan Brown’s book. As a film it is fairly average, but because it is building on something so successful it seems to be much better.

It stars Tom Hanks who is, as ever, wonderful to watch. He has such a fantastic on-screen presence and a tremendous ability to ‘become’ every character that he plays. For me, now that I have seen the film, I cannot picture anyone else as Langdon, and when I read The Lost Symbol relatively recently, it was Hanks who I was visualising in my mind. However, his acting performance isn’t incredible. It is not a particularly taxing role I shouldn’t imagine, and beyond reading the book a couple of times there is not much that is required beforehand with regard to dedication to the role. I really like Tom Hanks, but this isn’t one of his better roles. That doesn’t mean that it is one of his worst though.

In my opinion, the star of the show was Paul Brittany who played the monk Silas. In the book he is a very scary character and poses quite an intimidating threat throughout. It was always going to be difficult to translate this on to the screen. I have recently seen a fair few films with Paul Bettany in and so I was quite surprised to learn that it was he who played Silas in The Da Vinci Code. I just completely didn’t recognise him and he played his character very well. While he wasn’t as imposing as in the book, there are very few genuinely haunting performances. Silas is, I feel, intended as a haunting character and this is difficult enough to convey in words let alone on screen.

There are a number of other stars in supporting roles. Ian McKellen is perfect in the role of the English gentleman Leigh Teabing and provides a good voice to convey much of the grail legend to Langdon, Neveu and the audience. The actress who plays Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou – better known for her role in Amelie) doesn’t particularly stand out, but like I said, it is quite difficult to excel in such an adapted role. Alfred Molina does very well as the leader of Opus Dei, but he too suffers from the same hangover from the book as most of the other cast. Ultimately, this film only serves to provide a visualisation of the book in my opinion. There is nothing about it which makes it stand out from any other film.

I did like the way that the symbolism was portrayed in the film as it makes up such a major part of the book. All four of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon books feature the symbolism in popular culture as a major theme and this contributes to the astounding success of the series. As a result, there must have been a lot of pressure on the film to deliver this in a convincing and realistic way. Director Ron Howard does this very well and stays true to the vast majority of the meaning in the book.

Ultimately, this is a very hard film to make because of the obvious comparisons to the book. Personally, I don’t think it is a bad film at all, but it does suffer from the inevitable comparisons to the book. The casting is (mostly) spot on, and the presentation of the story is brilliant, but because of how incredible the book was, the film tends to suffer. If you wanted to watch the film then I cannot advise you strongly enough to read the book first. I guarantee it will keep you entertained for so long, but if you watch the film first then a lot of the twists and turns of the novel will be lost because of how well they are written. 

Other films starring Tom Hanks:

Saving Private Ryan - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/saving-private-ryan.html

Forrest Gump - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/forest-gump.html

Another film starring Paul Bettany:
A Beautiful Mind - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-beautiful-mind.html

Other films starring Ian McKellen:

The Lord of the Rings (Part 1) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-1.html

(Part 2) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-2.html

(Part 3) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-3.html

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey.html

The Iron Lady

I quite like the odd political film here and there, and so I was quietly looking forward to watching The Iron Lady. I thought, given that it is about Margaret Thatcher it will probably be a rousing controversial look at her time in office. Instead it focused much more on her decline and basically consisted of her letting go of the memory of her late husband. It’s quite a sad film, but one that keeps you interested with a glance back at her political life and some dazzling acting.

In the form of a series of flashbacks we are shown Thatcher’s life from the start to the end of her political career. From the first scene of the film, the title ‘The Iron Lady’ is put firmly to the test. She goes down to the shop to buy some milk and is not recognised by anyone. Throughout the film we see a completely different side to Thatcher where she is much more vulnerable and dependent on others for help. The past and the present is blurred for Thatcher, and she continually talks to her late husband, Denis, whom is present for much of the film.

Meryl Streep stars as Thatcher and is frankly phenomenal. Now it’s not hard to play an old woman who is struggling with Alzheimer’s, letting go of her past and adapting to her new life. However, Meryl Streep does such a fantastic job of becoming Thatcher. Right down to her accent, everything about Streep’s performance screams of the diligence and ability that marks her out as one of the best actresses of our time. Thatcher’s accent and tone are both very difficult to perfect, and yet Meryl Streep does so to great effect. Given the controversial nature of the first female Prime Minister, I’m sure there will be a number of films made about her, and I’m sure that Streep’s performance will be the benchmark for the actresses who take the role. Despite not being British, she excels in the role and in many ways, completely becomes the character that she is portraying. This is as much a credit to the makeup team as it is to her, and both thoroughly deserve the Academy Awards they won for this.

There is a wealth of supporting cast who deserve a mention. Jim Broadbent completely excels as the older Denis Thatcher. There seems to be something about Broadbent playing a slightly eccentric character, and he does so here to great effect. Equally enjoyable were Alexandra Roach and Harry Lloyd who played the younger Margaret and Denis. These two do brilliantly to convey the relatively care-free attitude of the two young politicians. Olivia Colman is also excellent as Carol Thatcher. This performance is another credit to both the actress and the makeup department. Now I haven’t seen much of Carol Thatcher, and I really don’t know that much about her, but I think Colman does an excellent job of playing both Thatcher’s daughter and the primary caregiver of someone with dementia. There are also a number of actors who comprise Thatcher’s government such as Anthony Head and Nicholas Farrell, however they don’t shine as much as the other cast.

However, despite the cast being fantastic, the film has met with much criticism. Thatcher’s two children have criticised the way the film depicts Thatcher. In many ways this is true, but ultimately there is a tendency for modern films to take a prominent figure who suffered from an illness and explore the illness around their character rather than the other way round. I would have liked The Iron Lady to be more of a biopic which presented the immensely influential yet controversial figure of Thatcher in the context of her political prominence. Instead, Thatcher has descended into neutrality and the filmmakers make her character largely uncontroversial and unlikely to divide the opinions of many. I think that instead of presenting a film about an old woman who can’t let go of her husband’s memory, I would have enjoyed an analysis of Thatcher’s time in office much more.

However, that doesn’t mean that I didn’t enjoy The Iron Lady because I did. It was a good film and I found it very easy to watch. It is also very uncontroversial and is unlikely to provoke strong feelings about Thatcher. However, I think this is to the slight detriment of the film. While a neutral film is more likely to appeal to the masses in that it won’t immediately dissuade either side of the Thatcher opinion polls. The neutrality of the film could be intended to reflect Thatcher’s life when she was out of the public eye. Anyway, you don’t need to be politically aware to enjoy this film. I would recommend it if you are interested in Thatcher, and if nothing else, just for Meryl Streep’s performance.

The Avengers

I was buzzing to see The Avengers when it was released last year, but I think I had quite a bit of work to do at the time and never got round to seeing it. When it was released on DVD I kept trying to find a price that was cheap enough that I could justify it. When I eventually bought it (for £5 in Sainsbury’s) I decided to keep it for the day after my exams finished, just as a little treat. Now that they have finished I have finally seen it, and I loved it.

I am a massive fan of superhero films, and love most of the Marvel characters. Recently, Iron Man has been a big favourite, and I was very excited to see how some of the other characters turned out. I was however a little bit tentative. Normally when a film has a large number of main characters they start to detract from the film a little bit. If this happens then what could have been a phenomenon turns into a bitter disappointment (remember Spiderman 3?). The Avengers deals with this problem very well. There are 7 characters featured on the majority of the promotional posters, and the film balances them out equally. There are a couple of stories going on with each character, but these are all given an appropriate amount of screen time, and instead of the film being all about one character, there is no character who plays an obviously major role to the detriment of another.

The plot is a fairly straightforward ‘bad guy wants to destroy the world as we know it’ sort of thing, but it is made to be original and so it works. Complete with an extraterrestrial threat to the freedom of humanity and an unusual source of power that the bad guy has obviously stolen to help his plot to subjugate the Earth, The Avengers has a fresh feel to it, despite the plot being a little bit old.

Now there are obviously too many main characters for me to talk about all of them in depth. Suffice to say that they are all excellent. Those actors whose characters have already had a film have not changed their style in the slightest. For example Robert Downey Jr. is every bit the same Tony Stark that previously appeared in Iron Man and Iron Man 2. Chris Evans makes Captain America a little bit different in this, but I suppose that he was frozen after the Second World War and so the world he wakes up in will be completely different to him. The Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) is different compared to the one in the previous film, but that is only to be expected given that this is a different actor. Chris Hemsworth does very well as Thor as well. This was my first experience of Thor and I thought that his character was very enjoyable to watch. The interesting responsibility that he feels as a result of his adopted brother being the one to wreak the damage is an interesting twist and plays out very well on screen. Jeremy Renner is absolutely wonderful as Hawkeye and given that he has nothing to build on with this character. His is a character whose story plays out during the film, with twists and turns along the way. I wasn’t sure whether he was good or bad for a bit, and Renner does very well when he falls on both sides of this fence. Scarlett Johansson is fantastic as Black Widow and never feels like anything less than one of the group. Her character is one that could be quite easily forgotten about but both she and the writers do very well to make her an equal member of the team. Finally, Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury does a magnificent job of being the glue between all the characters. Before this film he had appeared in a number of the ‘prequels’ without a major role. However, here his part is much bigger and his character becomes one of the few things tying the group together. He is, as ever, magnificent to watch in action.

Another aspect of The Avengers that I really enjoyed was the special effects. With many ‘blockbuster’ films today there is a slight tendency for directors to spend most of the budget on special effects that really don’t add anything to the film. Equally, as Michael Bay shows us, sometimes special effects can actually damage a film more than enhance it. With The Avengers, Joss Whedon does a fantastic job of getting the balance just right. The special effects are not overpowering and completely work in the context of the film, rather than being there to grab the attention of the people finding clips for the trailer. The weird alien ship monster things (if you’ve seen the film you will know what I mean) are fantastically well designed, and the effects around each of the superheroes are fantastic – particularly the way that Bruce Banner changes into The Hulk. The effects for this film are so impressive that it was nominated for an Academy Award, understandably losing out the Life of Pi. It is a very impressive example of how special effects can be used well in modern action films.

If you don’t like superhero films then you should not watch The Avengers. Also, I wouldn’t advise it until you’ve seen at least one of the prequel films because otherwise you might find yourself a bit lost about who all the characters are. However, if you do decide to watch it, then you will find yourself enjoying a fantastic film that keeps you entertained pretty much from the first minute to the last. Also, after the film ends, watch out because there are two post-credit scenes. Definitely one for the action superhero fan to enjoy. 

Platoon

Platoon is one of those films that I always meant to watch but never seemed to get around to. It is one of the best films about the Vietnam War, which considering how many Vietnam films there are is high praise. It tells the story of one soldier who volunteers for service and follows his development and experience of the war. The film is based upon the director’s experiences in Vietnam and is an absolutely amazing watch.

Charlie Sheen stars as the protagonist, Chris Taylor, who drops out of college and volunteers for Vietnam. To the other men in his unit, he is a complete outsider and doesn’t belong in Vietnam with the other hardened soldiers. However, after time he comes to be accepted and forms a close relationship with the group. Charlie Sheen manages to do a fantastic job in this film. It was (I think) his first major role and puts in an incredible performance. At the start of the film he appears as an innocent young man who is out of sync with the lifestyle of a combat trooper. However, by the end of the film his experiences have noticeably changed him. It is the extent to which this is noticeable that makes his performance so impressive. By the end of the film, he too is a hardened soldier, hence the tagline of the film: ‘The first casualty of war is innocence’.

Given that the film is based on Oliver Stone’s (director and writer) Vietnam experiences, the impact of this film is very powerful. I didn’t know that it was based on truth when I watched it, but when I discovered this, it completely changed my perspective on the film. It goes from a war film showing the effects of Vietnam on a young man to a film documenting how Stone feels the war impacted him. To say that this is profound is understating it a bit. Some of the scenes in the film (like the one where the soldiers reach the village) are very shocking, and reinforces the idea that you cannot know exactly what it was like unless you were actually there.

Aside from Charlie Sheen, the others actors who make up the platoon really complete the film. Tom Berenger is immensely sinister and dislikable as Sergeant Barnes. There is a sense of mystery around his character, in much the same was as there is around Tom Hanks in Saving PrivateRyan, but in Platoon there is a much more grave element to this. His character isn't meant to be disliked though, or at least I don’t think so. There is no doubt that he commits some atrocities in the film, but maybe Stone is conveying a strong message about the impact Vietnam has on people. The scar on his face alone shows the impact the war has on him, and when Charlie Sheen gets cut as well the parallels between the two men are stronger. Many people see Barnes as the villain, but he is made the way he is by the war going on around him. Similarly, Chris Taylor changes throughout the film due to the war going on around him. Either way, Berenger does a fantastic job of conveying the director’s message.

Sergeant Elias is played very well by Willem Dafoe, and is a relative force of good in the film. He seems to be keeping things very much in the ‘good’ camp, and after his death (the classic scene in the movie) things start to get a bit more out of control. In many ways it is his death that is the catalyst for this, as the suspicions start to creep in among the soldiers. In stark contrast to Elias is the character of Bunny (Kevin Dillon) who comes across as simply psychotic. He loves what he is doing in Vietnam and in one very disturbing scene, smashing a Vietnamese man’s head open with his gun before remarking that he’d never seen one pop like that. Bunny seems to represent everything twisted and bad about Vietnam, whereas Elias shows more of the compassion and good intention that Chris starts the film with. There’s a tip of the hat for Forest Whitaker, John C. McGinley and Johnny Depp who also appear in this film.

When you think about the acting, the symbolism, the subject matter and what it was based upon, it is really no surprise that Platoon won the Academy Award for Best Picture. It completely deserves this award, and Stone deserves the Best Director Award. I’m surprised that Charlie Sheen wasn't nominated for the Best Actor award, but both Dafoe and Berenger were up for Best Supporting Actor, again, deservingly. The film is incredibly well made, and really does grip you. Although it is a bit slow in parts, this is intended to reflect the nature of the war, and Stone, building on his own experiences, conveys this magnificently.

If you have an interest in Vietnam or in war films then Platoon should definitely be on your list. If not then I think it is the kind of film that is important to see, just because of the subject matter. You might not enjoy the whole thing, but its importance cannot be understated. I really enjoyed Platoon because it made me think, and thoroughly recommend it. 

Another film dealing with the Vietnam War, but in a more light-hearted way is:

Forrest Gump - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/forest-gump.html

The Intouchables

The Intouchables was recommended to me by a friend who said that I should review it for my blog. I think it’s fair to say that I took my time with watching it, and now that I have seen it, I wish I hadn't taken so long to get round to it. It is a fantastically touching, uplifting film that will draw you in without you realising it and leave you wanting even more from the story.

The Intouchables is a French biopic film about a quadriplegic named Philippe who hires a young man, Driss, to help him with his care. The first part of the film unfolds as a typical scenario in which neither character are comfortable with each other. Driss particularly struggles with the jobs that he needs to do for Philippe. However, by the end of the film the two are firm friends, introducing each other to various aspects of their very different worlds and they both change as a result of their friendship.

Now not being particularly ‘in the know’ about French cinema I had no idea who either of the leading actors were, and I think this really helped with my enjoyment of the film. By far and away, the best thing about The Intouchables is the chemistry between Francois Cluzet (Philippe) and Omar Sy (Driss). Both men do fantastically well to convey their characters as both best friends and individuals who don’t get on because they are from two different worlds. Although they are both spectacular together, their individual performances are very enjoyable too. Francois Cluzet does very well in a role which has the potential to be done either very well or very badly. His portrayal of a quadriplegic is brilliant and completely convincing. His performance makes up a central part of the film and it definitely would not be the same without him.

However, in my opinion, the show is stolen by Omar Sy who is an absolutely joy to watch as Driss. Having not seen Sy in anything before this I found him to be a thoroughly entertaining actor. His portrayal of both sides of his character is perfect. His is the kind of performance that you know is the result of some exceptional dedication from Sy. He is able to convey an enjoyment to the audience that brings them into the film. He certainly made me want to see more of the relationship between Driss and Philippe, and the feeling of not wanting it the film to end perfectly parallels what is going on in the movie.

I really loved this film for a number of reasons, the first being how it invites you in and captivates your attention without you really realising it. However, instead of being one of those film that is brilliant because of one stand out acting performance, or because of its deep and important message, it is brilliant because you enjoy it so much. This is primarily due to the relationship between Driss and Philippe, which is the focal point of the whole movie. It is not only this relationship that completes the film, but the fact that both characters grow and develop before your eyes. At first the incongruence between the world of Philippe and the world of Driss makes the film a bit awkward, and before it becomes so enjoyable it is quite funny. One particular scene that demonstrates this is where Driss is dealing with a neighbour who is always parking in front of Philippe’s garage.

Just a quick note about the subtitles, normally I cannot stand watching a film with the subtitles on because they distract me too much from the actual film. However with The Intouchables I found myself absolutely loving the film, subtitles and all. Because the relationship between the characters is so entertaining, an understanding of French is not crucial to your enjoyment of the film and the subtitles don’t really detract from the film.

I am going to follow of from the recommendation of my friend and strongly suggest that you watch The Intouchables too. It has been a while since I have seen a film that improved my mood so much. It is wonderfully uplifting and joyful in parts. Even better, it is the kind of film that very few people seem to have seen, and in that respect it is a bit of a hidden gem. I can’t imagine that you won’t enjoy it because of how fantastically engaging it is. Not one to miss at all.

The World's End

The World’s End is the third film in Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright’s ‘ice cream and blood’ series. There has been an awful lot of expectation for this film, largely because Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were both so successful. I was looking forward to seeing it and yet when I came out of the cinema I felt a little bit disappointed. It wasn't as good as Shaun of the Dead or Hot Fuzz, and I didn't seem to enjoy it as much.

If you haven’t seen the trailer, The World’s End is about five friends who, one night in their teen years, attempted a pub crawl known as the golden mile. Years later they return to Newton Haven to complete the golden mile, but things are not quite as they seem. Everything seems to be the same, and yet completely different. They soon discover that the villagers have been taken and replaced by ‘robots’. The five guys try to complete the golden mile without arousing suspicion, but they soon come across an alien network intending to ‘civilise’ humankind for the benefit of the universe.

Now I did enjoy the film, but not as much as they other two. It was a funny film which made me laugh out loud several times, and this was genuine laughter too. The comedy was original in that it wasn’t entirely recycled from the previous films. I thought that this was important because otherwise The World’s End would just be an extension of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. However, it followed a very different template. I hope this makes sense, but Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz both seem to have a prescribed pattern where certain jokes are repeated for comedic effect. The World’s End doesn’t feel like a film of the same mould. However, this isn’t a bad thing as it makes it much more unique. The laughs aren’t manufactured either and feel perfectly natural in the context of the film

I particularly liked the message behind the film. Edgar Wright is quoted as saying that he wanted to focus on the “Wetherspooning” effect with the “strange homogenous branding that becomes like a virus” (http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2013-07/17/edgar-wright-interview-the-worlds-end). Much like all of the pubs seen in the film are essentially the same, the humans are being slowly replaced with a branded identical copy of each other.

Simon Pegg is spectacular in this film, which seems to go unnoticed because his character is really dislikable. His mannerisms and commitment to his character is perfect. Nick Frost is also, and unsurprisingly, brilliantly funny as the teetotal Andy. I thought The World’s End was particularly entertaining in that Pegg and Frost seem to have swapped roles somewhat. Whereas Frost was the silly one and Pegg was the more serious one, in The World’s End Frost plays the serious character who is unwilling to get involved with childish scenarios. This reversal of their chemistry works perfectly throughout the film, which is as much a credit to each actor’s skill as it is to the scriptwriting.

The supporting cast is equally fantastic and complete the ‘friendship’ theme which has characterised all three of the ‘ice cream and blood’ films. Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan and Paddy Considine all work perfectly in their roles, and none of them ever feel like they’re playing second fiddle to Frost and Pegg. Each of them is there as their own character and are an equal part of the cast. Rosamund Pike is also very amusing as Sam Chamberlain, and the scenes with her in are particularly amusing. There are a number of cameo appearances which are also very entertaining, such as Mark Heap, whose manner is a source of laughter in every role he plays.

Overall I think The World’s End is a very good film. It will suffer a little bit though from being part of the same series as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. I didn't find it as entertaining as the other two, but still entertaining. I enjoyed watching it and genuinely laughed a few times. The plot was particularly interesting and felt relatively fresh and while some parts felt a little bit forced and manufactured, it was an entertaining and enjoyable watch. It’s not a bad film and if you enjoy comedies then you will like The World’s End. Complete with a message about trying to relive the past, Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright have produced a fitting finale for the ‘ice cream and blood’ trilogy. 

You may also like:

Other films by Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg:

Shaun of the Dead - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/shaun-of-dead.html

Hot Fuzz - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/hot-fuzz.html

Other films starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost:

Paul - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/paul.html