The Worlds End is a Hilarious Conclusion to the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy

The World's End

Directed by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz)

Written by Edgar Wright, and Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz)

Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, and Eddie Marsan

The Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy also known as the Blood and Ice Cream trilogy comes from the team of Edgar Wright (director/writer) and Simon Pegg (writer/star), with Pegg teaming up with Nick Frost on screen in every film.  The series gets its name from the Cornetto ice cream flavors and even every film pays homage to the different colors with a carefully placed wrapper in each film that is part of the series.  Shaun of the Dead pays homage to the read flavor to go along with the horror genre.  Hot Fuzz pays tribute to the original flavor which was blue, thus representing the cop theme.  The World's End uses the green mint flavor to pay homage to alien/science fiction films.  Together these three films are some of the funniest spoofs on the genre films with which people have come to love.

As stated above 'End' takes on the science fiction genre tackling the concept of an Earthly invasion, but in reality the film centers around a group of five's nostalgic trip back home to try and accomplish a drinking feat they failed as young adults.  Gary King (Pegg) was the ring leader of this group who attempted to tackle the Golden Mile with 12 different bars, and a pint for each bar, sounds easy, but distractions prevented King and his comrades Oliver (Freeman), Steven (Considine), Peter (Marsan), and Andy (Frost) from achieving their goal.  Gary has not moved on from his booze filled, drug ridden world, but his friends have 20 years later.  Gary works to get the gang back together again, and achieve the goal they were never able to accomplish.

Edgar Wright may be one of my favorite director's working; he has created a science which has brought about the success of the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy.  Wright's direction always brings about the best in ensemble, touching on the humor, and the intricacies of the action, like the fight sequences within this film.  Wright and Pegg have a great rapport and have created one of the funniest series ever which have brought about some of the funniest moments in film, but also take a sharp look at the genre films, and a not formulaic, but not so formulaic way.  At the moment Wright is attached to the next Avenger series film Ant-Man, and he and Pegg would be the perfect duo to tackle this off beat egotistical super hero.

While Wright and Pegg get most of the credit, deservedly so, this ensemble elevated the material to incredibly humorous levels.  Nick Frost is beyond under rated and within every film of the series he grows more and more creating some of the funniest characters, and this adventure is no different.   Martin Freeman and Paddy Considine who were part of Hot Fuzz also are truly hilarious within this film.  This is a great ensemble, and an excellent film to make you belly laugh, and put you in a good mood.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Should Have Been a Majestic Journey Instead the Film has no Magic

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings series, King Kong)

Written by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson, and Guillermo del Torro

Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, and Richard Armitage

When I was in junior high school I discovered this book by J.R.R. Tolkien about Bilbo Baggins, and his journey through well, the "unexpected" as he took on a dragon, fought with dwarfs, found a magical ring, and challenged himself to step outside of his comfort zone.  Tolkien's Hobbit was meant to be a bedtime story for his children, and unlike the complexity of his previously published Lord of the Rings series, The Hobbit.  So why did this film try so hard without ever trying?

The Hobbit, which obviously comes before the Lord of the Rings series is a simpler straight forward story about Bilbo Baggins who lives in the shire and helps a group of dwarfs try to reclaim their land from a dragon.  

To be honest this is the best and simplest way to to describe the book written by Tolkien, and yet Jackson and his collaborators will stretch this small yet wonderful book into three films.  For fans of the book, or people who know about the The Hobbit book you may ask how or why this is being done.  Well based on the first movie it seems like Jackson and his team is going to drag this out to try and make this film into something different than what it was intended.

The other problem is that this team put the cart before the horse, the back end of the film series coming before this trilogy sets up The Hobbit to be defined by the Lord of the rings films.  Fans of the films, and not the books would not be "satisfied."  The Hobbit is simpler liter fare, filled with humor and heart.  This is one area where the film succeeds, these many dwarfs are just hilarious and the heart is not fully missing from the film experience.

The other two main problems with the film are the fact that they are stretching the material too far, and the way the film is shot.  I think choosing to break this into three parts is massive mistake because while there was heart, soul, and laughter, which transcends from the original material, the script feel drawn out, and a bit of a yawn at times rather than capturing pointed moments, which make this story great.

The next problem is using the high frame rate technology, which shoots 48 frames per second, which does not add to the quality of film it merely distracts, and tries to hard to make things appear cooler than they actually end up.  This could have been shoot in the more traditional 24 frames per second and could have created a better experience.

The best parts of the film are the visuals, which are truly majestic, and they make you feel the beauty of the previous franchise.  For all its worth, and for the beauty which exists the team who wrote this focused too much on the little used Orc in the original source material rather than focusing on the simple emotional journey which exists in the book.

Jackson wanted to make the Lord of Rings again, but they forget this book is different, and their writing does not lead to strong characters layered characters like Aragorn, but flat characters with no depth beyond understanding they want their home back from the beautiful opening moments.  After the opening moments pass the film lost me along what was meant to be one of the most heartfelt journeys into self-exploration to loud bombastic unnescessary battle scenes.

The Many Faces of Sherlock Holmes

Yesterday I finally sat down and started watching the first series of Sherlock, the BBC television series, which is an adaptation of the works by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  Scottish author and physician Doyle created the character of Sherlock Holmes in 1887, in a series of short stories.  Holmes is seen as a "consulting" detective for Scotland Yard; he uses an acute sense of logical reasoning, has a knack for disguises, and forensic science to help solve crimes.  Doyle's characterization of this man, has left an indelible mark of literature that has moved into being an important part of film and television.

In more recent years Sherlock Holmes has captivated audiences in many different methods.  One of the most interesting adaptations, or interpretations is the television series House (or House M.D.).  Gregory House (played by Hugh Laurie) is a cantankerous doctor who uses that insane acute logical reasoning, along with medical knowledge to help his team solve medical mysteries at Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital.  House's confident and closest friend is Dr. James Wilson, the more kind hearted, and level headed of the pair.  Most loyal fans of the show have seen this connection, but to everyday viewer probably misses out on how Doyle's massively famous detective influenced television creator David Shore.  Shore brilliantly deduced that Holmes popularity could be translated in a not so obvious way to Laurie's sarcastic doc.  The show was a massive success and recently just ended its series run this past May.

In 2009 Sherlock Holmes received a more literal adaptation with film distributed by Warner Brothers entitled, go figure, Sherlock Holmes.  This film centered on 1891 London and the the relationship between Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his trusty side-kick Watson (Jude Law) as they investigated the supposed death of Lord Blackwood.  The film, directed by Guy Ritchie,  was released on Christmas Day, opened to decent reviews, and made a large sum at the box office proving that the legend of this famous detective had a lot of bite.  Two years later in 2011 Ritchie returned to the directors chair, and brought back Downey Jr. and Law in the sequel entitled Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.  The sequels reviews were not as strong, and audiences did not show up right away but in the slow holiday season, audiences returned to 221 B Baker to watch Holmes take on his arch nemesis Professor James Moriarty (Jarred Harris).

The real crowning achievement (quality wise) in the world of adaptations is the recent BBC adaptation of the classic story.  The television series entitled Sherlock, stars Benedict Cumberbatch as a modern day Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman as Dr. John Watson his faithful sidekick.  This modern birthed by Mark Gattis, and Steven Moffat puts Holmes and Watson in similar mysterious situations, but uses modern day touches to help carefully create beautiful stories.  Steven Moffat's writing is brilliantly paced, and within what the Brits call the first series (or season) the three episodes explore mysteries with a commercial free 90 minutes that allows the mystery, and character development to unfold nicely.  Gattis and Moffat use classic Holmes stories to help construct their modern day adaptation of this story.  One of my favorite aspects of the show is that Watson is a blogger instead of a physician turned author, that minor detail never feels trite or pandering merely the sign these men know how to construct a modern adaptation of classic literature.

In the fall Sherlock Holmes is getting an American adaptation with the television series Elementary.  The differences are that Holmes is moving the New York, and his sidekick is Joan Watson a female played by Lucy Lui.  Obviously one of the differences here is that the homoerotic undertones to Holmes will be missing in this series, which are beautifully woven in the BBC version.  This show could be a massive success because of the lore of the character, and it's on CBS, which will pull in a wide demographic.  The major question is why does this character translate so well?

These television shows, and films are just a hand full of the most recent adaptations within 2000s.  Before the 2000s there were films dating as far back as 1939, and television series adaptations as recent as the 1980s.  This character's intense ways for crime solving are indelible.  Doyle left a lasting mark in literature that has evolved into more recent mediums of popular culture, much like the way Shakespeare influences popular culture today.  The character of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson are the perfect dynamic duo, they complete each other signifying this great push and pull.  There is chemistry on friend level, which allows these two men to work congruently as they fight crime, and solve the most fascinating mysteries.  People love well plotted mysteries (they even love poorly plotted ones), but within this varying adaptations we are left with incredible adaptations of one of the most complicated men, solving mysteries, what more could modern day audiences want?  Nothing.