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

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.