Is The World’s End underrated?
An analysis on the final film of the Cornetto Trilogy
The Cornetto Trilogy, the genius work of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg, is a series of comedies beloved by all (well, some are more loved than others, as we will discuss). All 3 movies star good friends Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and tend to include multiple appearances from their acting friends, both A list and not so much. The films tend to take the pair and put them in different genres and not really spoof the style, but instead pay homage to it whilst also adding humorous elements. Shaun of the Dead, a play on words of 2004’s Dawn of the Dead, was both a very grounded take on the undead whilst also maintaining a silly tinge, whereas Hot Fuzz was a throwback to the buddy cop and conspiracy thrillers of the 90s, such as Bad Boys. These two films definitely do have their distinct differences, but they both feel similar in a way, especially in the humour and the characters’s interactions. This is potentially why the World’s End was not as well received.
The World’s End was the final film of the group’s trilogy, with a larger gap than the last film. However, it was originally roughly penned by Wright in 1995, and later developed (rather ironically) as a bittersweet trip down memory lane. The film revolves around our central protagonist, Gary King, attempting to reunite his old high school friends for the famous “Golden Mile”, which is a pub crawl in their hometown which they had previously attempted but never completed. Upon returning home, they notice that things are not quite as they seem — whilst things look the same, there is something off. Like the 12 pub-long crawl, the film was a success, with awards, acclaim from critics and a good box office return all forthcoming. However, when you speak to most fans, including me previously, of the original two movies, this is often disregarded as a “Godfather 3” type of film, as opposed to a “Revenge of the Sith” ending. On rewatching the film with a fresh perspective, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised at how smart, funny and wholesome the whole thing was.
One of the many things I see people complain about is the humour, as it is not a straight-up comedy like the previous two entries. The humour tends to come from physical actions or from misunderstandings, similarly to the humour of the fence fall in Hot Fuzz. But a lot of the comedy which worked best for me was the bickering between the friends, as it felt authentic. If you have a group of male friends, you will likely see each of them in the five main characters. The arguments and the sarcastic comments feel true to life, and I definitely found myself laughing out loud numerous times. So, the comedy to me is not the issue.
Another criticism ladened on the picture was the unlikeability of the characters and the lack of distinguishable personality outside of our two leads. Pegg’s character, Gary King, is rather hard to love, as opposed to Shaun and Nicholas Angel. He is a man who cannot accept his place in the world, is judgmental, inappropriate, and a little uncomfortable to watch. Andy, on the other hand, is very serious and cold with his former best friend, with genuine reason. The two are constantly at odds with each other, where the major conflict occurs in the movie. The other three characters do not really have much distinction, as the only things we truly find out is Steven (Considine) was madly in love with Sam (Pike), Peter (Marsan) was bullied in school and is also a bit of a coward and O-Man (Freeman), who I actually cannot remember much about. So, I guess this criticism could be valid. Except that…
Gary King is arguably the best developed character in the whole trilogy. We see him as a loser, as society does, because he fails to let go of the past. His nature, in fact, is rather similar to that of a teenage schoolboy — overly sexual, obnoxious, rebellious and inconsiderate to others. As the film moves on, we see that he is capable of growth, such as sending Sam away to keep her from harm. His confession to Andy, about how he has a problem and how he is embarrassed to ask for help, was such a heartbreaking revelation. His final choice, not to be immortalised as a legend and replaced by a replicant, could be both saw as him being so full of himself that nobody could “replicate” what he did, but also that that is in the past and should not be forever, showing his character’s growth over the course of the crawl. One thing is for sure — it does show off Pegg’s excellent and often overlooked chops as a serious actor.
I also like how smart the film is. Sure, there are rather idiotic moments or lacks of logic, but I do like the writing, in a similar vein to the previous movies. For example, the twelve pub names all relate to elements on the story, and the story follows the original crawl’s events (O-man drops out, the original 3 make it to the end, etc). This, with the social commentary on the soullessness in modern chain pubs and small towns, provides for a thought-provoking film, with plenty of rewatch value. Although, the ending has still not grown on me, I must say.
I think the best thing about the film, however, is the risk that both Wright and Pegg took. Following the international success of their previous two feature films, it would have been very simple to redo the same formula again — maybe have Pegg and Frost doing the pub crawl, with Rosamund Pike’s character as a former flame to both, and continuing the alien hijinx. Instead, they took the unsafe option and told a more serious, heartfelt tale with elements of dark comedy and most importantly, stayed genuine to their artistic vision, and I think that with future rewatches, people will start to see what a gem this film truly is.
