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 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…

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.

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 …

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.

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.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

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 …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…