The World's End

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 4 of 5 stars Average: 4 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: The World’s End brings back the winning team that brought us Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. This time in an alien invasion/robot body snatchers plot that revolves around drinking.

What did you think of The World’s End, Nick?

Nick: While not as good as the prior two films in the Cornetto trilogy, it stands on its own and has one of my favorite endings of any recent movie.

Dustin: I thought it was every bit as good as Hot Fuzz, but it sort of had the same theme with individuality being brutally repressed. Both movies even had a former Bond as a villain (Timothy Dalton in Hot Fuzz and Pierce Brosnan in The World’s End--I reckon we can expect Daniel Craig in the next one).

Nick: Hot Fuzz is my favorite, but something that was exceptionally done in The World’s End was the fight choreography with the direction and editing of those particular scenes.

Dustin: I agree. I thought the action scenes were shot better than your average modern action flick.

Nick: A change from the norm is that Simon Pegg plays the character who is down on his luck and no hope of a good future, while Nick Frost is the more mature character.

Dustin: Nick Frost’s performance was quite good here. He showed depth with subtle facial expressions, and even though he had been previously typecast as a big buffoon, I believed him as a mature lawyer here. I think part of it has to do with his sympathetic face.

Nick: Though Frost does deliver a great performance, I feel that the film lost a lot of what brought the laughs to the first two films. Frost’s buffoonery in Shaun of the Dead and his naivete in Hot Fuzz set up more laughs than anything else in either of those films.

Dustin: Most of the laughs here came from Simon Pegg, usually from his misunderstanding someone or acting totally inappropriately. The scene at the beginning when he is reminiscing fondly of his wild drinking days and lamenting not finishing a pub crawl from 20-some years earlier in an AA-like meeting sets the tone for the film.

Nick: Pegg’s character rarely made me laugh, but in turn had such an emotional depth that made me feel sadness about how many people I know are well into becoming that character.

Dustin: I laughed a lot in this movie, but most of the time, I was the only person in the theater laughing. Pegg’s delivery is rapid and deadpan. It’s easy to miss a lot of the humor that doesn’t involve drunk people tripping over things.

Nick: Not to mention that it lacks a single scene of a character throwing up. This set-up had me scared that they would throw some low-ball humor into the mix.

Dustin: I’m surprised no one threw up too. They set out to drink twelve pints, which is no small task. Myself, I would feel pretty crappy after the fourth pint, and be pretty sick after the fifth and especially sixth. Simon Pegg’s character, Gary King, is still able to stand by the end. And they’re not drinking Miller Lite, its all craft beer.

Nick: Did you notice all the former actors from the previous Edgar Wright films?

Dustin: Not other than Simon Pegg and Nick Frost.

Nick: Well I’ll just give you one example. In Shaun of the Dead, the first girl that the characters realize is a zombie and they accidently throw her on a pole, she’s in the first scene of the AA meeting right next to Simon Pegg. She was doing the same face, which is why I recognized her!

Dustin: I’m sure that was thrown in as an Easter egg to reward fans.

When we reviewed Cockneys vs Zombies, you didn’t think it worked so well as a zombie movie. Do you think The World’s End works as a robot/body snatchers movie?

Nick: A subgenre will work for me if it’s either heavily invested in that subgenre or if the film is more about the drama than the subgenre. In this film the character’s relationships are more central to the film than the plot device which moves it forward. The explanation for the alien invasion is pretty generic, but the fun of Simon Pegg arguing with the “leader” is hysterical enough to shrug it off, especially because it’s more about his character.

In the Cornetto trilogy the drama and the comedy are so closely linked that one always has the other. In almost every scene the comedy comes from Pegg, while the drama comes from his four friends who are tired of his shit.

Dustin: This movie was more about the comedy, so I judged it from that point-of-view. All the Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg movies are delightful and offbeat. I would recommend this over any other comedy in theaters now.

Kick-Ass 2

Dustin: 2 of 5 stars Nick: 2 of 5 stars Average: 2 of 5 stars (Canary on life support)

Nick: In Kick-Ass 2, Aaron Taylor-Johnson shares top billing with Chloë Grace Moretz as Hit Girl. Hit Girl is trying to assimilate to normal teen life, while Kick-Ass is trying to become as “kick ass” as Hit Girl. What did you think, Dustin?

Dustin: I didn't dislike it as much as some other critics, who are basically suggesting if you like this movie you’re a bad person. While, I understand why people are put off by these movies, I found the first one appealing. However, this one felt like a thin bookend to the first.

What about you?

Nick: The focus was narrower in this film, which is something the first film should have done.  Kick-Ass’s girlfriend was one of the most pointless characters in film history, and thankfully she was cast aside quickly (though from something moronic). In a way, Kick-Ass 2 is as enjoyable as its predecessor, maybe because there wasn't a 12-year-old girl maliciously murdering “innocent” hookers with a spear through the abdomen.

Dustin: I’m not sure they should have been so quick to get rid of Kick-Ass’s girlfriend knowing now they were setting up something of a romance angle between Kick-Ass and Hit Girl. She is creepily young for him. Too young to be set up as a romantic interest in a movie. Which also raises the question of these movies’ timelines. In the first movie, she looks 11 or so, and Kick-Ass was 17. In this movie, she seems to have aged by three or four years, but Kick-Ass has apparently only aged by one year. (Edit: In Kick-Ass, Taylor-Johnson was 19, and Moretz was 13. In Kick-Ass 2, Taylor-Johnson is 23, and Moretz is 16. Both were probably younger when filming began.)

Nick: Fun Fact: Aaron Taylor-Johnson is married to a woman twice his age and he has two kids with her. So he goes for cougars in real life but likes kittens in films.

True, his girlfriend had only one line and after all the pointless screen time she received in the first one, I would have figured they'd give her more lines and a better reason to get off screen.

Dustin: Another problem I had with this film is the superheroes are supposed to be real, and they try to establish this is set in the real world by saying things like, “This isn't a comic, it’s real life.” But the action is so over the top, and Hit Girl’s stunts are especially unrealistic, so it becomes hard to suspend disbelief. The same could reasonably be said about the first film, but I didn't have this problem when I watched that one, because I thought the first movie established its tone and style better.

Nick: Hit Girl and Big Daddy’s chemistry in the first one is surely missing here. The way the characters played off each other and the creepiness of both are what convinced me that this might be set in the real world. Though Kick-Ass, on the other hand, is what really gets to me at times. Smart, good looking, funny, caring and genuine, but he gets played off as a loser who only has two friends in a gigantic high school. This archetype has and will always drive me a little insane.  How about we don't play him off as a loser, just a shut-in that everyone ignores because he is shy and doesn't care to talk to anyone? But no, he gets bullied by jocks and the hot girl thinks he’s gay.

Dustin: I thought the comic bits where she thinks he’s gay were fine. I thought he was more relatable in the first movie. I liked that he was the lovable awkward boy. Here, he is more of a cardboard cutout of a character. I also preferred Hit Girl more when we didn't know as much about her personal life and feelings. Her inner thoughts only came out in revealing bits of dialogue in the first film, and I would have preferred it stay that way.

Nick: Hit Girl is way more of an interesting character, but I agree that they failed to do much with it, and the vomit/diarrhea scene was pointless.

Dustin: That scene might be appealing if you like fart jokes. I liked her idea of humiliating those girls, and the scene could have done better with the material. But the sound effects were more like something out of a dumb kids’ movie than a superhero movie set in the real world. The scene could have been effective if it had been scaled back.

Nick: Kick-Ass was better from a technical standpoint, but I actually enjoyed this story more. It might be because Zombieland came out right before Kick-Ass, and the main characters of both are annoying archetypes where they make the main character a loser and make all the characters around that cardboard character way more interesting ala Tennessee (Woody Harrelson). While in this film Kick Ass was transforming from his “loser” character into something that doesn't even have an archetype, which I love because simply defining people by names will never work for me. Just calling someone a "loser" doesn't make them a loser, just like putting the word “Amazing” in the title of The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't make it amazing. It’s a way to put the idea that it is what they want you to think it is without ever really developing the character.

Dustin: I thought the first one was better, not just stylistically. I liked the origin story. And I thought Kick-Ass was more relatable. For example, in the scene where he and Red Mist are driving around and dancing like goofy dweebs to Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy” they both come off as more human, and you understand the dynamic between the two characters without one word of dialogue.

Dustin: Both these movies got some very passionate negative reviews. What do you think of the reactions?

Nick: Before I saw the first Kick-Ass (while very excitedly waiting for it), I did something that was uncommon for me and read a review because of how negative it was. It was Roger Ebert’s review. While I disagreed with him about half the time (maybe more) on whether a film was good, he tore into the film for the uber-violence stemming from a 12-year-old, and I rolled my eyes because he had the same reaction towards Leon: The Professional, where a young Natalie Portman trained to be an assassin, and the film is actually quite brilliant. So I went into the theater, and while I laughed a ton and was annoyed by its complete lack of focus, the thing that disturbed me was the killings being enjoyed by a 12-YEAR-OLD FUCKING GIRL. She and her father might be heroes, but they are also nuts. I might have been more comfortable if the film agreed they were nuts. The song playing in the scene where she is ruthlessly murdering everyone in the pimp’s apartment is a children’s song sped up, and we see too many close ups of her face gleefully enjoying what she is doing. I found it all very disturbing, but at the same time, a film that is well made with intentions of entertaining and makes you feel to the point where you have to tell someone is what I believe art should always be. So I don’t think it is wrong to like this film. Maybe Transformers 2 or Pearl Harbor, but this film isn't pointless, just disturbing.

Dustin: One reviewer, Ali Arikan, criticised the movie for its so-called subtext about a white male protecting a blond “Aryan” girl. He seemed to think there was some sexist and racial purity themes at work. I was thinking, “Please limit your hatred to things that were actually in the film.”

Nick: People really like to create their own subtext to match their own subconscious. That little Aryan girl attacked a couple white girls and a black girl and made them all vomit and shit everywhere. If that doesn't define equality, then I’m not sure what does.

This film wasn't as funny or as violent in terms of number of deaths and CGI blood, which is less fun compared to fake blood on an actual set. Jim Carrey was brilliant as Colonel Stars and Stripes, and I’m really happy they didn't give him the same fate he had in the comic books. Pretty fucked up!

Cockneys vs Zombies

Dustin: 4 of 5 stars Nick: 3 of 5 stars Average: 3.5 of 5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Cockneys vs Zombies is the latest zombie-comedy, a genre which includes Shaun of the Dead, Planet Terror, Warm Bodies, Go Goa Gone, and World War Z.

What did you think of Cockneys vs Zombies, Nick?

Nick: Mildly amusing and not very disturbing for a zombie movie. Does not have as much gore as I like in my independent zombie flicks ala Dead Alive.

Dustin: I liked it more for the comedy than the gore. I’m really reviewing this more as a comedy. I thought it was mildly amusing throughout, with a few good laughs.

Nick: The only parts that almost got me to laugh are the scenes with Alan Ford (Brit gangster from Snatch). Killing zombies is what that man was born for!

Dustin: There were some great visual gags, which I won’t describe in too much detail because then it won’t be funny watching them. But one involves a zombie mother and a baby, and the other has a zombie chasing an elderly man in a walker.

Nick: The movie had promise, but no setup became resolved. Even the end is up in the air.

Dustin: Which setups didn't pay off?

Nick: Mostly character setups. I feel that the characters who were killed off were the more interesting ones and had the most to offer, while the ones who lived were pretty bland as they didn’t offer any contrast from each other. They were all moral, family and “innocent.” The black guy should have lasted longer because he provided a character that the rest of the story could have used... someone to contrast what they are all saying. Everything is kind of smooth the last half of the film.

Dustin: I would have liked the black character to have lasted longer too, mainly because he provided so many laughs.

I agree the two brothers who were the main characters were a little too innocent. Or maybe their innocent sides and criminal sides didn't mesh well together. They are two goodie-two-shoes who drive meals to nursing homes, but decide to rob a bank so their grandpa won’t have to move to another nursing home. I still didn't see how robbing the bank would have helped. I assume the city had already zoned the area for the luxury apartments, and just having money wouldn't change the decision. But I guess they needed a reason to have the gun-toting black guy and the two hostages...

Nick: Yes, to put it simply all the main kids who live are pretty much the same in a moral compass kind of way.

What did this movie give you that other zombie-comedies haven’t delivered?

Dustin: Eighty-seven-year-old Pussy Galore with a machine gun.

Nick: She is still smoking hot!

Dustin: Do you think the zombie-comedy genre is played-out?

Nick: Many genres are played out, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t gems out there to dig up. I think zombie films are a favorite for up-and-coming directors, which is why there are so many independent zombie flicks.

Dustin: I heard horror movies in general are easy to get the greenlight for because they have a built-in audience and can be produced cheaply. That may be the reason fledgling directors make horror films. I think if a director can make convincing special effects with a shoestring budget and produce a genuinely scary movie, they have what it takes to make bigger films. But I am pretty much tired of zombie movies, and while I enjoyed this film, I think I have seen enough zombie-comedies.

Nick: Horror and romantic comedies get an easy greenlight, which is why on Rotten Tomatoes they mostly all have low scores.

I guess what keeps me going in Zom-Coms, if you will, is Peter Jackson’s Dead Alive and Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead.  Dead Alive has more gore than you could possibly imagine, and Shaun of the Dead has the same amounts of horror as it does comedy. Those are my tent poles that I compare all Zom-Coms to.

Dustin: This movie wasn’t very gory, but it did have its moments. The almost entirely decomposed zombies in the opening sequence were well-done, as was the scene where a zombie had bitten onto our black hero, and another character shot it in the head, but the front of the face stayed attached. Other than that, the zombies just looked like extras with a little blood makeup.

Nick: The first scene’s gore built the idea up in my head for what Cockneys vs Zombies was going to be but after that amazing sequence there was no more brilliant gore to be had.

Dustin: They probably ran out of money after that.

Would you recommend it?

Nick: For sure! Its only 80-some minutes long, and you can rent it for a week on Amazon for $7. Grab seven of your friends, and I know all of our readers at least have seven friends (no losers here), then it will only be $1. That’s my math for the day!

You?

Dustin: I’d recommend it for anyone who is looking for a comedy that will provide enough laughs without wearing you out.

Nick: I look forward to the sequel and the inevitable Broadway musical starring Hugh Jackman.