The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Director: Marc Webb

Starring: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Sally Field

Written by: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner (story and screenplay), James Vanderbilt (story), Stan Lee, Steve Ditko (based on their comic)

2014 has been an incredible year at the movies for Marvel. Disney released two of the best films yet in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: the game-changing “Captain America: Winter Soldier” and the rejuvenating shot of fun that is “Guardians of the Galaxy.” “X-Men: Days of Future Past” also hit theaters to much acclaim. With its innovative time travel plot, Fox wiped the slate clean with Wolverine and company, and impossibly managed to make the seventh film in the series the best yet.

And then there’s “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” which swung in on a web of mixed reviews and a box-office tally that was the lowest in franchise history (to be fair, $700 million is nothing to sneeze at.). The film was such a disappointment for Sony that a planned third film has been delayed from 2016 to an unspecified time in 2018. That disappointment has only been amplified by the fact that Marvel’s other films have been so exceptional this year. But that’s not exactly fair. Yes, the film certainly has a number of flaws, but there are enough redeeming qualities to make it worth a go for fans of the Webslinger.

Forget the action, this is the best thing about the film. 

The biggest problem with “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is that it has failed to learn from the mistakes of the past, namely it repeats the problems that plagued “Spider-Man 3.” There are simply too many characters and stray plot strands that add absolutely nothing to the story. For example, a showdown between Spider-Man and Electro toward the end of the film is frequently interrupted by a subplot involving two planes that are on a collision course due to a city-wide blackout. The scene has no effect on the plot or the characters. You could argue it’s there to show how the blackout affects the citizens of New York, but if that’s the case it’s a failure of prioritizing. Director Marc Webb cut scenes with Shailene Woodley as Mary Jane in the name of “streamlining” the plot, so why not this? Especially considering the film is already overlong at almost two-and-a-half hours. There are many other examples like this. It seems Sony is more intent on setting up a universe for future films than it is on telling a coherent story.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” works best when it keeps the focus on Peter Parker’s personal struggles, both in and out of the suit. This is mainly due to Andrew Garfield’s flawless performance. What I think this series gets much better than Raimi’s original trilogy is Spider-Man’s sarcasm. The banter between Garfield and his various enemies is quite funny, and livens up the already exciting action scenes. What’s most affecting though is when Garfield pulls back to show the more human side of his alter ego, such as when he interacts with a young boy in danger or when he tries to talk down an angry and confused Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) after he wakes up from an accident.

In fact, this is the first time in the history of the hero’s story on film where you really feel the tragedy that lurks behind the mask. Where you truly understand the vitality behind Spider-Man’s famous moral code: with great power, comes great responsibility. Peter is struggling with that responsibility because he’s in love with Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone.) The last film ended with Peter promising Gwen’s dying father that he’ll stay away from her to keep her safe but it’s a promise he’s struggling to keep. It’s easy to understand why. There’s a romance here that’s genuine, heartfelt and painful as the best romance stories tend to be and it’s really the film’s saving grace. The film floats by many of its flaws on Garfield and Stone’s breezy chemistry. Webb made his name with the wonderful indie romantic-comedy “(500) Days of Summer” so it’s no surprise that he feels most comfortable with the love story contained in his summer blockbuster.

It’s such a shame then that the sparks don’t quite fly when it comes to the villains in his story. Jamie Foxx’s Electro is a mixed bag. As Max Dillon, he plays the character a bit too over-the-top. His obsession with Spider-Man had the potential to be interesting, especially when he’s displaying signs of a personality disorder by imagining that he and Spidey are best friends, but it’s just not explored enough. When he makes the change into the blue-hued human generator, he’s actually quite menacing but his intimidation is dampened by some odd style choices. There’s a musicality to his fight scenes that makes it sound like he’s battling Spider-Man with the power of dubstep rather than electricity. Also, during his first big showdown in Times Square there’s some subtle but bizarre heavy-metal music in the background with Electro’s screaming stream-of-consciousness serving as the lyrics. It just doesn’t mesh well with the more grounded take on the superhero story.

Electro is better than expected, but surprisingly disposable.

Electro’s presence actually has very little impact on the story anyway, and could easily have been cut all together. Sure, we would have missed out on a couple of really creative fight scenes and some nifty visual effects, but cutting him would have streamlined the story, making it stronger. It also could have put more focus on developing Harry Osbourne (Dane DeHaan), who emerges as the central antagonist late in the film. Harry’s plight is easy to sympathize with but the film doesn’t look far enough beyond his spoiled, rich-kid persona to make you care. DeHaan does his best to spice up the material he’s been given but it just comes across as trying too hard. There’s a decent attempt to humanize him some with a re-kindled friendship between him and Peter, but it comes across as contrived. There’s a huge gap in time since the two have seen each other that the movie fails to acknowledge in a believable way.

Overall, there’s just enough here to satisfy fans of the series. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is colorful and funny and engaging and the action scenes are expertly choreographed and animated. It’s one of the few films where I think that the CGI works better than practical effects ever could. And then there’s Garfield, who appears to have been genetically created in a lab specifically for this role. His scenes with Stone are the reason you want to see the film, even if you have to navigate a sticky web of mundane villains and unwarranted subplots to get there.

3 out of 5

Oh, and here's picture of Spider-Man in a firefighter's helmet... just because. 

And, yes... this actually happens in the movie. 

Thor: The Dark World

Director: Alan Taylor

Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Natalie Portman, Christopher Eccleston, Anthony Hopkins

Written by: Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, Stephen McFeely (screenplay), Don Payne, Robert Rodat (story), Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, Larry Lieber (based on their comic)

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and some suggestive content

The God of Thunder is back in his second solo outing, and while “Thor: The Dark World” is undeniably entertaining, it’s still not as strong as some of Marvel’s previous efforts.

This time Thor (Chris Hemsworth) must contend with the return of the Dark Elves, a race of creatures who are determined to return the universe to all-consuming darkness by using a weapon called the Aether, which was hidden from the Elves eons ago by Thor’s grandfather, Bor. Meanwhile, Thor’s brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is imprisoned in Asgard by their father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) due his actions in “The Avengers.”

Back on Earth, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is still looking for the hunky god that swept her off her feet two years ago and accidentally (some might say conveniently) stumbles upon a portal that leads her to the mysterious Aether, which infects her when she touches it; Because you can’t not touch a spooky, gravity-defying liquid in these types of movies.

I could go into a lot more detail just about the setup of the plot, but I’ll spare you.

The movie is constantly throwing exposition at the audience, which wouldn’t be too bad if it wasn’t a bunch of incomprehensible, pseudo-scientific nonsense. I understand that in a fantasy setting certain things need to be explained but, in this film, most things are over-explained. This actually makes the movie more confusing, less captivating and distracts us from the more compelling parts of the narrative.

Thor may be the God of Thunder but there are no sparks here.

Mercifully, the movie gives us an abundance of stunning visuals to accompany the dull stretches of dialogue.The production design is gorgeous. The aesthetic hybrid of science fiction and fantasy is endlessly inventive and always a joy to behold. I love the way that the kaleidoscopic celestial bodies intermingle with Asgard,  the Tolkien-esque city that’s been enriched by magic and technology. Without a doubt, this is the best looking film in the Marvel universe.

           

“The Dark World” shines brightest when the film focuses on the family turmoil in Asgard and the impending invasion of the Dark Elves. So, it’s a shame then that the film spends much of its first 45 minutes on Midgard (Earth to us mortals) with the bland human characters. Natalie Portman fares better in her role as Jane, but she still seems a little too ditzy and careless to be taken seriously as an astrophysicist. Kat Dennings makes an unwelcome return as the “comic relief,” Darcy, who’s almost as unnecessary as she is irritatingly unfunny. Then there’s Stellan Skarsgård as Dr. Erik Selvig, who’s so traumatized from being possessed by Loki in “The Avengers” that he spends most of his scenes …without pant… *sigh.

The funniest thing about “Thor: The Dark World” is that it tries harder than any of the other Marvel films to make you laugh, and somehow it’s the least amusing. It’s odd that they tried to wring most of the humor out of the human characters because it’s actually Thor himself that provides the most humor. Hemsworth is hysterical and his fish-out-of-water shtick surprisingly never gets stale.

There’s a lot of fun mined from Thor’s time spent with his traitorous brother as well, mostly because Hemsworth and Hiddleston are exceptional in their respective roles, but also because the jokes are grounded in a relationship that is real and gives the movie the emotional anchor that it needs.  When the sibling rivalry between Thor and Loki is finally thrust into the foreground of the story, the movie finally comes to life. Their complex love/hate relationship is the heart and soul of the “Thor” franchise. The time spent uselessly explaining the plot could have been put to better use by giving these two more screen time together.

Unfortunately, that chemistry doesn’t transfer over to the romance between Thor and Jane. It was forced in the first movie, and it doesn’t feel much more authentic here. Jane falling for Thor is understandable: he’s funny, confident, powerful and knows the secrets of the universe. His love for her remains questionable, though, because we never get to know her as a person other than she’s an intelligent goof who likes the stars. Portman is endearing, but that does little to convince me that a god can fall for this mere mortal.

Marvel doesn't have the best track record with villains,
but Malekith is one of their better efforts.

His desire to protect her from the Dark Elves though, makes perfect sense. Their motives for destroying the universe are somewhat fuzzy, but it does little to diminish their terrifying presence. Their leader Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) is a sinister force to be reckoned with. When “The Dark World” finally gets to the otherworldly action, you’ll almost forget about the sluggish journey it took to get there. The battle scenes are elegantly orchestrated and leverage their fantasy elements to create some creatively loopy scenarios. The final showdown involves our hero tumbling with Malekith through portals to other realms. It’s head-spinning fun.

“Thor: The Dark World” is definitely an improvement over the first film, but the pull of Earth’s gravity – and especially its inhabitants – prevents it from reaching the stars. Hopefully in the inevitable third installment, Marvel will put as much care into crafting Midgard as they do Asgard. 

3.5 out of 5

Gravity

Director: Alfonso Cuarὀn

Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Ed Harris

Written by: Alfonso Cuarὀn, Jonas Cuarὀn

Rated PG-13 for intense perilous sequences, some disturbing images and brief strong language

I felt physically exhausted after watching “Gravity.” I wasn’t simply sitting in a theater watching images pop on the screen with 3D glasses on my head and surround sound in my ears; I was careening through space for every terrifying second, fighting to survive. 

“Gravity” isn’t just a movie. It’s a metaphysical experience.

The plot of the film is ingeniously simple. Medical engineer and rookie spacewalker, Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), finds herself spiraling through the infinite expanse of space when debris destroys the shuttle that she’s working on with veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). With a dwindling oxygen supply and no contact with Earth, Stone and Kowalski must work together to find a way home.

Just imagine how utterly horrifying it would be to be trapped in space, doomed to forever sail across a sea of emptiness without any way to steer yourself toward a destination. I imagine it as similar to being in a state of complete paralysis: conscious but helpless. It’s an intriguing thought for sure but can an entire movie be sustained on such a simple premise?

In the hands of director and co-writer Alfonso Cuarὀn, the answer is a resounding “yes.” There are some really inventive ways that he builds and releases tension, none of which I’ll spoil here. You’ll just have to trust me. The movie never fails to capture your attention.

“Gravity” is primal storytelling at its best, less focused on character arcs and more on wringing a kaleidoscope of emotion out of the audience. It’s alternately terrifying, thrilling, heartbreaking, awe-inspiring and breathtaking.

That’s not to say that the characters are undefined, quite the opposite in fact. The film gives us just enough information to connect with them as human beings without distracting us from the immediacy of the narrative. We identify with their internal struggles so that, when everything goes haywire, it feels like something is at stake.

It also helps that we’re given remarkable performances from the two leads, especially considering that they had to act mostly in front of a green screen while suspended in the air. Clooney brings his usual charm to a character who’s much nobler than what we typically see of the actor. He’s a voice to give us an occasional break from the terror that dominates the film. However, it’s Bullock who makes the film as compelling as it is.

Her desperation is evident in every facet of her performance, most notably in her erratic breathing, something she does so convincingly that I found myself involuntarily matching her pace. She’s the conduit through which the audience feels emotion and much of the film’s success is thanks to her total dedication to the demanding role. I fully expect her to take home a ton of awards for her work.

What’s just as impressive as the acting is the stunning scenery that surrounds the actors. The view of the Earth is majestic, especially when it eclipses the sun and casts varying bursts of light and color onto the screen. The effects are extraordinary and rendered in painstaking detail. You’ll marvel just as much at the destruction of a satellite – and the resulting confetti of debris – as you will at the way a person’s breath collects on the inside of their helmet.

It’s all framed by a camera that fluidly mimics the weightlessness of space, flowing and spinning around the characters in mostly unbroken takes (the first shot of the film is 13 minutes long.) It’s composed more like a dance than an action picture, recalling the iconic “Blue Danube” scene from “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The technique makes you feel like you’re a character in the film; an unseen entity tagging along for one wild ride.

I also highly recommend seeing the film in 3D, even if you’re not a fan of the format. The 3D is so thoroughly convincing that it feels like an extension of your own reality. It’s beyond immersive. It’s probably as close as you’ll ever get to actually traveling in space.

Cuarὀn cannot be given enough credit for making everything work as seamlessly as it does. It feels like an evolutionary step forward in cinema, not just in terms of technology and experimentation, but also in the way that he marries big-budget spectacle with the artistic sensibilities of less mainstream entertainment.

“Gravity” is stellar. This new classic in science fiction is worthy of being mentioned alongside masterpieces of the genre like “Star Wars” and the aforementioned “2001.” See it on the biggest screen possible. It’s one of the best and most adrenaline-inducing experiences I’ve ever had at the movies.

5 out of 5 stars.

Carrie

Director: Kimberly Pierce
Starring: Chloe Moretz, Julianne Moore, Ansel Elgort, Judy Greer, Portia Doubleday
Written by: Lawrence D. Cohen, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (screenplay), Stephen King (novel)
Rated R for bloody violence, disturbing images, language and some sexual content

Originally published in the East Tennessean

Kimberly Pierce’s remake of the classic horror film “Carrie” isn’t exactly a bad film, but it’s one that’s so beholden to the original that it comes across as lazy and unnecessary.

The strengths of “Carrie” rest in the timelessness of its subject matter. Social outcast Carrie White is mercilessly bullied by her high school classmates. At home she has to contend with her abusive mother, whose warped and ill-informed Fundamentalist views on religion are extreme to say the least.

Carrie is empowered when she discovers that she has telekinesis, which revealed itself when she went through puberty. As Carrie cultivates her power, a few of her classmates scheme to humiliate her at prom. The consequences are devastating.

I’m not really one for comparing films, even when it comes to sequels and remakes. I like to judge a movie on its own merits and not those established by outside influences. However, I feel that comparisons to Brian De Palma’s 1976 adaptation of the Stephen King tale are impossible to avoid because the new film rarely ever attempts to step out of the exploding shadow of its predecessor.

Entire scenes, shots and sections of dialogue are lifted wholesale from the original film, so much so that it makes it feel less like homage and more like outright plagiarism. I understand it’s a remake, and many people prefer their classic tales to remain untouched, but I feel that the point of a remake is to offer new perspectives or update the story to make it more relatable to modern sensibilities.

Scenes between Chloe Moretz and Ansel Elgort
are surprisingly sweet. 

The only way that they bring the story into the present is with a minor plot point involving a cell phone, where the infamous shower scene is videoed and put up on YouTube. Other than that, the few changes that are made actually diminish the movie’s impact.

There seem to be fewer scenes about Carrie’s status as an outsider and more that focus on her tormentors. This would have been an interesting perspective had the care been taken to develop these characters and analyze why they are or aren’t conflicted with their feelings toward Carrie.

The book and original film do a great job of this, but in the new film you just get the same vapid teens in the same high school milieu that populate every other generic horror film. It feels inauthentic and you end up caring very little about what happens to the characters.

It’s a shame we see less of Carrie and her mother, Margaret, because the two main actresses are the best part of the movie. Chloe Grace Moretz does a great job of showing us just how demoralizing it can be to suffer from bullying every day, and how empowering it must feel to discover that she can fight back.

Although, honestly, I think that Moretz is a little too pretty to be completely believable as a pariah. Of course, that’s not a knock against her. It’s not her fault. You’d just think the make-up department would do more than ruffle her hair to show why most of the boys find her unattractive.

Carrie’s mother is a tricky role to pull off -- it could have easily devolved into over-the-top hysterics -- but Julianne Moore balances the benevolence with the malevolence very well. Margaret’s behavior is somewhat subdued compared to the earlier adaptations but, nonetheless, Moore is a fierce presence that gives the mostly inert movie some signs of life.

"You've got red on you."

Also, the final outburst of violence is disturbing for all the wrong reasons. It’s a little too slickly stylized and special-effects driven. It revels in the violence rather than portraying it as the tragedy that it is, and it just feels wrong. We’re supposed to regret the death that ensues when Carrie snaps, not cheer it on.

I’m always happy to see a film attempt to shed light on the issue of bullying. Most kids and teens who bully don’t realize the profound psychological effect their actions have to those on the receiving end.

While that message is there and clear in “Carrie,” unfortunately, it’s diluted by its broad characterizations, toned-down content and inability to make the film relevant to a modern audience. It looks even worse in the wake of last year’s excellent film “Chronicle” which is a loose re-imagining of “Carrie,” only from a male perspective.

Coming from the director of the thoughtful and wrenching “Boys Don’t Cry,” I was hoping this new version of “Carrie” would be a more grounded, gritty and emotional examination of teenage oppression, as opposed to the stylized and dreamy approach that De Palma took. Unfortunately, it seems that this version of “Carrie” was crafted more with a paycheck in mind than a message.

If you've not seen the original film or read the book, then you may enjoy this movie for the simple pleasures it offers. Even if much of it is copied from another movie, it’s still looking over the shoulder of a great piece of entertainment. Just keep in mind that there are better alternatives out there.

2.5 out of 5

Captain Phillips

Director: Paul Greengrass
Starring: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Catherine Keener
Written by: Billy Ray (screenplay), Richard Phillips (based upon the book "A Captain's Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALS, and Dangerous Days at Sea")
Rated PG-13 for sustained intense sequences of menace, some violence with bloody images, and for substance use

Originally published in the East Tennessean.

 “Captain Phillips” is a gripping true story that rises above other thrillers due to the humanity and moral complexity of its characters.

The movie is based on the 2009 hijacking of the merchant vessel Maersk Alabama by four Somali pirates. The ship’s captain, Richard Phillips, was taken hostage which prompted the United States Navy to initiate a rescue operation. 

The part of Phillips is played to magnificent effect by the one and only Tom Hanks, who reminds us again why he is one of Hollywood’s greatest treasures. 

The role is quite demanding, both physically and emotionally, and Hanks matches the varying character pitches perfectly. He effectively exudes confidence while also keeping a twinkle of terror and vulnerability in his eye. His powerful performance in the film’s final moments brought me to tears and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

Breakout star Barkhad Abdi is magnetic. 

Though Hanks is the protagonist, I’d argue that the real star of the film is newcomer Barkhad Abdi, who plays Muse, the leader of the Somali pirates. His menacing demeanor disguises a wounded soul who’s only there as a victim of circumstances beyond his control. Muse is not a man motivated by greed, he’s motivated by survival.

He’s much like Phillips in this way. They’re both just trying to do the job they have to do to get by. Their shared humanity gives them an uneasy, unspoken alliance. Each may be standing in the other’s way but there’s a mutual sense of respect and understanding.

Both know that this is a collision course that simply could not have been averted.

The film dares to make us feel compassion for the antagonists where other films typically do not. They’re more than just cardboard cutouts to take pot shots at, we become attached to them. These are real people with real lives. When the Navy finally comes in and begs for a peaceful resolution, you pray they can find one, even if in your gut you know it doesn’t exist.

In a routine Hollywood production, the end of this film would be a triumph; a celebration of the efficiency of the American military and American resolve. In “Captain Phillips” it’s a tragedy; the unintended consequences of the global economy. There are no heroes or villains here, only victims.

Coming from Paul Greengrass, who directed “United 93” and the last two-thirds of the Bourne trilogy, it’s no surprise that the film features an almost overwhelming attention to detail. In the beginning, the dedication to procedure and authenticity is a little off-putting; giving the film a sluggish pace, but his documentary-like approach is ultimately what grabs us and throws us into a seat on the ship with the captured crew.

This subtle way of building anticipation ensures that everyone who sees the film will be digging their

nails into the nearest armrest, leg, wrist or helpless pet they can find.

The climax is almost unbearably intense. Be ready for it. 

Film is a monumentally powerful medium, and it’s always encouraging to see people like Greengrass – along with screenwriter Billy Ray -- leverage their art for understanding. “Captain Phillips” is the kind of movie that helps us to fathom the human condition, and see the world in a way that’s just not as visible without the aid of film. If we as humans have to share a planet with one another, we should at least strive for perspective so that we can coexist as peacefully as possible.

I’m not sure if “Captain Phillips” will do anything to advance the human race in such a profound way, but it’s commendable that it even tries. It does, however, have the potential to at least start a few conversations and that’s a step in the right direction.

“Captain Phillips” is a terrific film because it uses its entertainment value as a thriller to force the viewer to ask questions about the characters and themselves, and to reexamine how one feels about difficult topics like terrorism, globalization and – the greatest mystery of all – our fellow man. It will hold you captive. 

4.5 out of 5

The World's End

Director: Edgar Wright
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan, Rosamund Pike, Pierce Brosnan
Written by: Simon Pegg, Edgar Wright
Rated R for pervasive language including sexual references

Originally published in the East Tennessean

The team behind “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz” are back to conclude their loose trilogy of comedy mayhem with “The World’s End,” and just like its predecessors, it’s a slice of fried gold.

“The World’s End” is the funniest comedy of the year. It’s also an exhilarating action movie, a prescient science fiction film and a heartfelt buddy flick. Brewed together, these elements make for the one of the most enjoyable films I’ve seen in quite some time.

Simon Pegg (who co-wrote the film with director Edgar Wright) plays Gary King, an alcoholic who’s so stuck in the past that he continues to wear the same black duster that he brandished in his glory days. His life plateaued in 1990, when he and his four friends attempted to complete ‘The Golden Mile:’ 12 pubs, 12 pints, one night. The only problem is that they all became so drunk that they failed to complete their journey.

Pegg's manic performance is the highlight of the film. 

Fast-forward to present day and Gary has an epiphany at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting that sends him scrambling to get the estranged gang back together, and return to their hometown of Newton Haven to finally complete their epic pub crawl.

Pegg is perfect in the role, giving the best performance of his career thus far. Gary is obnoxious, narcissistic, manipulative, and clueless but he’s also oddly charming and endearing. You can’t help but sympathize with his pathetic plight to get the band back together because you know this adventure is all he has left in the world.

However, each of his four friends is a tough sell, having moved on to seemingly idyllic lifestyles. Oliver (Martin Freeman) sells real estate, Steven (Paddy Considine) is an architect, Peter is heir to a BMW car dealership and Andy (Pegg’s usual partner-in-crime Nick Frost) is a corporate lawyer who’s 16 years sober thanks to Gary’s past antics.

The “Five Musketeers,” as Gary calls them, decide to come together mostly out of pity for their friend, but a few drinks in and they’re all mostly back to their past brotherly rapport. There’s a wonderful sense of camaraderie. The dialogue between the gang is quick, catchy and consistently funny.

A lot of care was put into the characters’ back stories and shared history making it feel like you’re actually dropping in on the musings of old friends. As the alcohol flows, the boys share fond memories, inside jokes and even rekindle friendly rivalries.

The acting is flawless. I especially enjoyed the subtle way the characters seem to get more intoxicated as the night wears on. You can tell the actors are having a blast. The sense of fun is palpable.

And then the real fun begins.

It would be criminal to spoil what happens next, but I will say that eventually Gary and company discover that their livers aren’t all that’s being threatened by their return to Newton Haven. A battle ensues that puts their lives -- and possibly the fate of the entire world -- at risk.

Where “Shaun of the Dead” spoofed horror films and “Hot Fuzz” took aim at action movies, “The World’s End” has set its sights on science fiction, and the omnipresent theme of apocalypse that runs rampant in our popular culture.

The action is elegantly choreographed and shot with an infectious energy thanks to director Edgar Wright’s signature organic transitions and punchy editing. The special effects are dazzling for a film of this scale and really draw you in to the more outlandish proceedings of the second half.

What I enjoyed most, though, were the pauses in the action and showmanship, where the tension between the characters is brought into the foreground. At the heart of “The World’s End” is a touching and emotional ode to friendship and a reminder that it’s not your past that matters, it’s who you shared it with that’s important.

Such drastic tonal shifts would seem jarring and contrived in a less accomplished film, but Wright weaves together these disparate genres seamlessly. I will admit that some scenes feel rushed, and the third act is a little rough, but it does little to harm the overall impact. This truly is a film with something for everyone.

Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have completed the quintessential comedy trilogy. Here’s hoping that these three immensely talented musketeers can continue to collaborate well after “The World’s End.”

4.5 out of 5 Stars. 

Top Ten Horror Films

Horror was the last genre that I embraced as a movie lover. I don't really enjoyed being scared. In fact, it kind of makes me angry most of the time (just ask my wife.) I've also found that most of the horror films that I've seen are pretty contrived, and are more concerned with upping the gore factor than with telling an effective story.

While I still believe that there are exponentially more bad scary movies than good, it's understandable given that it's possibly the most difficult genre for a director to pull off well, but it's worth sorting through the garbage to find the few gems. Great horror movies allow us to confront our fears in a safe environment and posit tough questions so that we may discover new things about ourselves. They show us the unthinkable so that we may think on the horrors that exist in our daily lives. They aren't content to simply scare, they create an atmosphere, envelop us and linger in the sub-conscious long after the movie's over. They are reflexive, cathartic, therapeutic. This is what horror does better than anything else and it's why I've come to love being scared. These are the top ten horror films that provoked the strongest reactions out of me.

10. Scream

This is one of the first slasher films I ever saw (through my fingers) and it holds up beautifully. It works so well as a horror film that I often forget it's also a clever spoof that takes aim at the precise formula that the slasher genre had devolved into. The iconic opening scene ratchets the tension up to 11 and never relents. The self-aware dialogue is so funny and such a joy to behold that it makes you forget what kind of movie you're watching. This renders the resulting descent into horror so much more harrowing. Scream adeptly skewers the competition while also being better at skewering than the competition. It has guts and brains, a rare combination.

9. The Blair Witch Project

The spawn of the found-footage epidemic is still one of the best examples of how to use the convention right. This film reminds us that what we don't see is often far more terrifying than what we do see. The film purports to be an actual documentary, following a small group of kids into the woods of their sleepy New England town in search of the fabled Blair Witch. The realistic presentation absorbs us into the film as if we're one of the characters and makes the terror within feel entirely too plausible for comfort. At the time of it's release, there were even some people who didn't realize the film was fictional. For me, this is still one of the most unsettling viewing experiences of my life. The final frames haunted me for days. 

8. 28 Days Later

The Walking Dead owes an enormous debt of gratitude to this British zombie flick. The film follows Jim, who awakens from a coma in an abandoned hospital (sound familiar yet) only to discover that an outbreak has turned most citizens into mindless flesh eaters. The similarities don't end there. The film also chooses to focus less on the "monsters" and more on the social decay that follows such an event and how it affects the humanity of its survivors. The difference is that the zombies here aren't zombies at all, they're rage-infected humans. They're fast, feral and probably the most frightening incarnation of the undead ever conjured. A single drop of their blood can infect a human in 20 seconds flat. There is no such thing as a comforting farewell here. The terror is relentless, the drama is poignant and the film is a masterpiece of the genre. 

7. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

It may not be the scariest movie ever made but I dare you to dream up a more frightening concept than a man who can invade your dreams and kill you in your sleep. Sleep is necessary. Sleep is inevitable. There's no escape. No matter how much you resist, you have to succumb to it eventually. Here the teens have to face off against one of the most chilling and enduring horror icons in film history: the razor-gloved, hideously disfigured Freddy Krueger. The dialogue and acting may be a bit dated but there's no denying that the film exudes style, keeps the scares coming in rapid succession and toys with our perception of reality in some inventive ways. Freddy became a bit more comical as the series went on but here he's as serious as a heart attack and his appearance alone is likely to give you one. 

6. Bug

Nevermind The Exorcist, this is William Friedkin's masterpiece. Set in a single hotel room, Bug weaves a tale warning about the pitfalls of unquestioning love and unsubstantiated paranoia. On the surface, it more closely resembles a low-key character drama than a traditional horror film. Make no mistake, the film is a foreboding slow burn that escalates into something that -- like the titular "bugs" that may or may not exist -- really gets under your skin. Michael Shannon's performance in this movie is, frankly, one of the best I've ever seen in anything. Even during scenes where it's all you want to do, you can't take your eyes off of him. He's magnetic, ferocious, uncompromising, unbelievable yet utterly convincing. He makes you want to believe in him, even though you know you shouldn't, which is where the true horror in this film lies. 

5. The Fly (1986)

It may sound odd but this is the kind of movie I like to watch when I'm sick because, even though I may feel awful, I can always say, "hey, at least I'm not that guy. That guy in question is Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) a brilliant scientist who has discovered the key to teleportation. At least, he thinks he has. The only thing needed to prove his invention is a human trial. A lone fly gets trapped in the pod with him and the two become one. Goldblum's transformation is, to put it bluntly, disgusting. He's slowly falling apart but he's also slowly falling in love with Veronica (Geena Davis) which makes his decay sting with tragedy. Anyone who's had a loved one suffer from a terminal illness will know that the pain in this film is anything but fiction. 

4. The Thing (1982)

Imagine an organism that can absorb and assume the appearance and memories of anything it touches. How do you know who's themself and who's... something else. The sense of paranoia in John Carpenters The Thing is almost unbearable and it's made even more tense by the atmosphere that he creates. The Antarctic setting leaves you feeling cold and isolated. The Thing forces us to question our perceptions of ourselves and our neighbors. We never know when something sinister is lurking beneath the surface of even our closest friends. Carpenter preys on that fear mercilessly. The movie has one of the best ambiguous endings of all time and Kurt Russel is the ultimate badass. His beard alone should have been enough to scare the thing away. It would me. 

3. Jaws

It's kind of strange to think that the world's first blockbuster was a horror movie. Alas, Jaws is the quintessential horror movie and launched the career of one of the world's most renowned directors, Steven Spielberg, though I can't give him all the credit. The malfunctioning shark prop prompted Spielberg to only give us fleeting glimpses of the shark until the big showdown at the end. The gamble worked. It capitalizes on our fear of the unknown and keeps us shaking in our seats in anticipation of the big reveal. It doesn't hurt that the rest of the movie is top-notch too, with well-rounded characters, memorable lines and that dreadful John Williams score, it's amazing to think that it was considered a huge risk before it was released. Though, I guess not as big of a risk as skinny-dipping off the coast of Amity Island. 

2. Let Me In

Let Me In is the story of two young misfits growing up in New Mexico, dealing with bullies, family drama, etc. Oh, did I mention that one of them (Chloe Moretz) is a vampire? Easily the most poetic of all the films on the list, the film works beautifully as a both a melancholic coming-of-age tale and a new take on the vampire mythos. The performances are magnificent, especially the mature turns from the two young leads, who were around 12-years-old at the time of filming. The characters are vividly drawn, the story is moving and the horror is understated yet affecting. Many think the original Swedish film Let the Right One In is superior, and maybe it is, but I'm a sucker for the American setting and 80s pop culture references. 

1. Alien

Alien often feels like a dream. The way the camera floats around the halls of the richly detailed spaceship is mesmerizing. It lulls you into a feeling of comfort early on, and then betrays you by setting a deadly alien loose aboard the ship. Much like The Thing, the sense of alienation is overwhelming. There's no means of escape and the Alien's acidic blood means you can't destroy it without punching a hole in the ship and killing the entire crew. What's more interesting is that the Alien's nature isn't really homicidal at all, it's simply trying to survive. The "And Then There Were None" formula has rarely been put to better use, if ever. This is achieved mostly by making us care about the characters, especially Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), film's greatest heroine. It also looks like it was filmed yesterday and includes some extraordinary practical effects which have rendered the film timeless. Oh, did I mention it's scary? It's not only the best horror movie ever made, it's also one of my favorite movies of all time. 

Honorable Mentions: Evil Dead II, The Cabin in the Woods, Cabin Fever, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Silence of the Lambs, The Crazies, Dawn of the Dead, Frankenstein.