Skip to main content

Trolls are extra.


Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
(2013)

It feels like a dubious decision to reinvent with adolescent boys in mind; you’re ignoring the core market and are unlikely to find one with a group who shy away from “kids’ stuff”. That it’s proved to be a hit shows I don’t know nuffink. Tommy Wirkola is just the latest to spin a new-but-less-than-dazzling twist on such material. He never has his sights higher than metal music, busty maidens and four letter words so, on that limited level, Hansel & Gretel is a resounding success.


Occasionally he forgets himself, and inserts a genuine element from family fantasy fare; the evil monster that turns good (Edward) is more the sort of thing you’d expect from Labyrinth than a movie desperate to squidge heads into bloody pulp at every opportunity. And Edward’s relationship with Gretel (Gemma Arterton) is the only one in the movie that musters any feeling. Certainly, there isn’t much chemistry between Gretel and her brother (Jeremy Renner). They’re given broad, wisecracking dialogue (none of it very good), coursing with very contemporary swearing in place of wit, but neither has the larger-than-life quality to carry it off. Both are curiously flat. On the one hand Wirkola seems to be pushing for a Sam Raimi vibe (the witch hags look straight out of something he would make), on the other he only has the talent of a Robert Rodriguez. Appropriately, as this most resembles the coarseness and crudity of From Dusk Til Dawn and shares a similar fourteen-year-old sensibility. It also lacks the infectious glee of Raimi at his best.


Wirkola furnished the script too (he’s very far from an auteur, though), so the hackery is entirely his fault. He revels in anachronistic weapons and clothing as much as he does language. We don’t really need to hear Hansel and Gretel’s biggest fan shouting “That was awesome!” any more than we want them to stomp about in designer leathers (well, some might…). The super-gadgetry was crap when it festooned Van Helsing; what makes Wirkola think it will be any cooler here?


It’s readily clear from the prologue that the director will be taking an irreverent approach to the material, as soon as Hansel pushes a witch in an oven and asks rhetorically, “Is it hot enough for you now, bitch?” He has the occasional inspired idea; Hansel is diabetic due to all that sugar as a small lad, and his ghastly witches are quite effective on the occasions they leap around on all fours. But his heroes’ mission is no more and no less than the title; they must rid a “shitty little town” of witches with the occasional intrusion of a par-for-the-course mystery from the past to solve. Even if the two are ready made to suffer from childhood traumas it’s no less one-note and predictable as it’s in every bleeding character description these days.


The director commendably puts an emphasis on practical effects over CGI wherever possible. You can also see that he has lots of ideas but not many of them pay off.  This really needs to be more cartoonish and less the sort of thing a couple of guys would come up with over a few beers. There’s a chicken joke in there (I maintain that no movie can be all bad if it contains a fowl gag) and a reference to Goldlilocks and the Three Bears and it’s vaguely amusing that the crones sound a bit like Predators. 


But generally Wirkola just wants to copy from better pictures. It seems awfully familiar when we break into a title sequence that brings the exploits of H&G up to date because it is; everyone’s doing it lately. He keeps the picture lively (although he doesn’t quite seem to know how to frame the action in 2:35:1), but the problem is his tale has no traction. It doesn’t take long for Peter Stormare to become a deranged nutter,; he’s befuddled by a script that can do very little with him, so he becomes a would-be rapist. He fared much better with his OTT turn in Terry Gilliam’s take on fairy tales, the problematic The Brothers Grimm (which at least dazzles fitfully).


Matthew Hopkins would probably be proud of a movie that takes such unbridled glee in slaughtering witches in a variety of high impact fashions. There’s an unpleasant undercurrent of violence against women throughout; it’s just meant to be okay because they’re hideously ugly (and because they aren’t even human, we’re told). By the time Wirkola introduces a white witch to redress the balance it’s too late. And then he decides to put Gretel through the ringer in a queasy sequence for what has generally been a knockabout experience. He has the temperance to cut away when a child is about to meet a nasty fate but seems to revel in the mistreatment of women. Famke Janssen seizes her part like her career depends on it, but the material doesn’t allow her to become so hissable that you’re rooting for her.


Wirkola’s movie was a surprise hit, dumped in dead-end January but going on to make more than $200m worldwide. Inevitably, a sequel has been announced. There’s always the danger that the audience feels they were hoodwinked into seeing something unsuspectingly and vow to give any follow-ups a wide berth. This is an unlikely franchise starter, not because it’s terrible but because it’s so derivative.

**

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …