Skip to main content

Hi, I'm Harry, and this is my movie.

The Harry Hill Movie
(2013)

The Harry Hill Movie was decidedly not greeted with rapturous applause by audiences high from TV Burp and, erm, You’ve Been Framed (you’d have thought anyone watching the latter would welcome any old crap). Undoubtedly, this is a very patchy affair. Possibly, if you appreciate Hill mocking the slenderest of motivations for the plot, you will be on-board to at least get the most out of it. While it’s no surprise that a performer schooled in sketch comedy should deliver a movie as episodic as this, it is disappointing that the randomness isn’t more off the wall. Too frequently, at a loss over how to pad out 90 minutes, Hill comes up with a deflated musical number or a so-so plot diversion. But I can’t come out with a full-on attack of The Movie; it’s rarely more than a minute or two away from a chuckle, and if you like Hill as a performer (why else would you be watching?) he’s never less than an amiable presence.


Hill’s takes the rise out of movie conventions from the start, and it’s not for nothing he has mentioned Pee Wee’s Big Adventure as a template. The plot hinges on the least significant of events; Harry’s hamster Abu only has a week to live, so he takes him on holiday to Blackpool (“City of a thousand dreams”). Sprinkled upon this dramatically bereft premise are the clichés of movie villain plotting (but on a budget of “£20,000”). Harry’s long lost evil twin brother (Matt Lucas, whose career quickly transitioned from being likeably exuberant to shouty and annoying) wishes to get hold of Abu (there are reasons, but really it’s just “because”) and sets some henchmen on his trail (Inbetweeners’ Simon Bird and Richard Kiel-alike Guillaume Delauney). I wasn’t really aware of Bird, as I’m not an Inbetweeners fan; he does reasonably, although he maybe doesn’t have the capacity for hammy caricature that serves Hill best (his Justin Bieber ”disguise” is probably his best moment). Delauney gets more laughs, somewhere between Jaws and Bernard Bresslaw.


Hill’s co-star, aside from Abu, is Julie Walters. She’s in Acorn Antiques mode, and is never at her best when over-indulged. It’s partly Hill’s fault (with co-writers Jon Foster and James Lamon), giving her the hipster granny part (she has to rap at one point, which is toe-curling). Her best moments are during the mobility scooter chase with Harry that opens the movie (this is just the kind of upbeat, fourth wall breaking irreverence that is Hill at his best; it’s mostly downhill from there) and the “Nan Fu” fight sequence (which is all about the amusing graphics overlaid, rather than it being inherently funny to have a granny beating up bad guys, not when Steptoe and Son did it and not now). Hill would have been better off casting Jim Broadbent as Nan rather than as the nuclear power station receptionist; great capital is made of the British drag tradition here, so why not take it to its logical extreme?


Johnny Vegas voices Abu, which is a big mistake. Vegas is okay when he’s in his Eye-ore like element, but he’s over-familiar and tiresome here. Abu could have been very funny but the voice casting kills it. Many of Hill’s best moments historically come from interactions with post-modern puppetry, and outside of Abu he boasts an encounter with a machine gun nest of chickens in his back garden that hits just the right cartoonish tone.  Likewise, the French fox disguised as Abu is wonderfully absurd, and the visualisation will be familiar to anyone who has seen Ren disguised as Stimpy in Ren and Stimpy. 


One gets the impression Hill has little interest in quality control, content to throw in anything and everything that might get this to movie length. Consequently, there’s a pervading slackness to the construction, and arbitrariness to scenes following scenes. This sort of thing doesn’t matter so much in an Airplane! type spoof, but Hill’s digression into the home of the shell people isn’t a funny idea and it isn’t weird enough to make capital from. Julian Barratt deadpans sportingly as their king, but he’d have been better to pitch in on script duties. Sheridan Smith is also laboured as Harry’s love interest; instead Hill should have gone all meta about the need to feature a love interest in any given movie (why not, he comments flippantly on nearly everything else).


Steve Bendelack directs, previously having tackled a couple of TV to big screen transitions (Mr Bean’s Holiday, League of Gentlemen’s Apocalypse), and does so with indifferent competence. This is day-glo and sunny, with a nice line in ‘70s wallpaper, but there’s a point where reproducing the cheerful cheapness of TV seems both too studied and too careless. For every moment of inspiration (the satnav and its “Angry White Van Man”, the car disguised as a traffic cone, the obsession with montages including one set to The Flashing Blade theme), there are more that stumble (crappy/unfunny dance numbers including Shingai Shoniwa singing about a carwash, presumably just because she’s in Hill’s address book) or just sort of sit there (a Jurassic Park reference is likable enough, but the giant brains aren’t funny; a visit to a nuclear power station is commendably anti-; but Abu-zilla is a familiar spoof too many, and notably Pee Wee went there first).  Musicality is one of Hill’s great loves, and some of his best moments on TV come from his whacky riffs on classics (Popcorn is great, accompanying the scooter chase). They tend to stumble here, without a sharp enough focus or wit. It’s fun to see The Magic Numbers, but The Dachshund Five is a better play on words than it is an extended joke.


So The Harry Hill Movie doesn’t deserve its concerted slating. It’s not very good, it could never be hailed as a neglected classic, but big screen transitions from TV performers rarely are. I expect something similar would have resulted had Reeves and Mortimer ever made a cinema excursion, although they are also really bad actors (as their Randall and Hopkirk remake proved). Hill plays “himself”, which means you know what you’re getting. Unlike Python, who only got better in their movie incarnations (well, two of them at least), Hill is content to noodle and doodle without ever trying to fit the scope of cinema, failing to recognise that the same thing can’t just be stirred and repeated. So he saddles himself with tepid interludes. But, if this overstays its welcome, it doesn’t teeter over the brink into being out-and-out awful.

**1/2 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983)
(SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bonds in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball, but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again, despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

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

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…