Skip to main content

I'm just a mercenary, fighting for gold.

Hercules
(2014)

(SPOILERS) If there’s one thing that can be relied on in Hollywood, it’s Brett Ratner’s aptitude for turning any silk purse he stumbles over into a sow’s ear. Ever since he plunged an all-star cast and great script for Red Dragon into pungent mediocrity (it’s okay, we’ve still got Manhunter), there’s a fear that his each new project will be an opportunity for to dash someone else’s potential. So far, we’ve escaped lightly. True, he desecrated the X-Men franchise with Last Stand. But then there was the not-bad Tower Heist (at least, it was a sign the old Eddie Murphy still exists, so perhaps I was just grateful for small mercies). Now Ratner has made Hercules, a lousy movie about Hercules that wasn’t the lousy movie about Hercules directed by Renny Harlin. The comfort is, even if Ratner had no involvement, this would still be a lousy movie about Hercules.


Hercules is based on the recently departed Steve Moore’s Thracian Wars comic book. Alan Moore and his interplanetary beard kicked up a stink about the perceived opportunism of Paramount/MGM recognising Moore on ads only after his death. Which may be the case, but Moore (Alan) needs no excuse to grind his axe with Hollywood. The main question is why this myth-busting take on the demi-god was considered to be a remotely appealing idea. I understand that Moore’s take, while it intentionally moved away from the mythological beasties, stopped short of actually decrying Hercules’ status as a son of Zeus. Even then, one has to wonder; what’s the appeal of the character, shorn of the challenges that made him famous? You may as well have a barely-out-of-nappies Arnie lumbering around present day (1970s) New York.


It’s shocking how, post-Harryhausen, Hollywood has failed to have the slightest clue about how to render the Greek myths on screen. One would have thought the opportunities were endless and seductive, what with the leaps and bounds in effects technology, but instead they’ve been mostly hamstrung. The Clash of the Titans remake was miscast, misdirected (by the previously reliable Louis Letterier) and only enabled a sequel thanks to the dire 3D foisted upon it.


Ironically, the lesser offenders are the contemporary Percy Jackson & the Olympians pictures, which at least appear to have a genuine affection for the original legends and iconography. Troy seemed particularly unforgivable at the time, embarrassed to admit to the deity-fuelled antics of The Illiad in a post-Gladiator world (Clash is similarly botched, grit and crew-cuts and shakycam imbued). I hasten to add, I really like the Director’s Cut of that movie, but the ass-backwards thinking that inspired it seems to have also infected the limp charade that is Hercules. Hollywood even manages to shoot itself in the foot when appealing to the Christian market, introducing scepticism to Exodus when what’s needed for box office is unquestioning belief. If Tinsel Town isn’t willing to be cynically devotional for the sake of the dollar, then all hope is lost.


In Hercules, the titular muscle-bound hulk, who trades quips in modern style with his modern pals, isn’t the son of Zeus at all. He’s a warrior, all right, but his amazing feats are a mixture of the support lent by his crew, the oratory of his annoying nephew, and the (hugely patronising in visualisation, but that’s Ratner) natural capacity for exaggeration his fame encourages. 


His gang consists of seer Amphiaraus (Ian McShane, reaping the scant laughs, and looking remarkably robust for 70-plus), Autylocus (Rufus Sewell, the Han Solo type, right down to running off with the gold and coming back at the end; the most shocking thing here is that Sewell doesn’t turn out to be a bad guy), Tydeus (Aksel Hennie, giving it some with his boggle eyes) and Amazon archer Atlanta (Ingrid Bolsø Berdal, a more toned, statuesque and less frosty Nicole Kidman type). Oh, and the enormously annoying Iolaus (Reece Ritchie), the PR-guy and Hercules’ Scrappy Doo. Of all the characters who needed a spear through the temple…


Hercules, of course, has a haunted past. A really boring one involving a not-at-his-best Joseph Fiennes (he rarely has been since Shakespeare in Love). Herc wants to retire somewhere quiet, beside the seaside, beside the sea. So it is that his band of mercs takes a gig for a shed load of gold from Lord Cotys (John Hurt, who clearly decided it was a chance to catch some rays and let his beard unfurl some), training Thracians to fight the Bessi tribe, who are endangering them. Inevitably there are tales of the supernatural qualities of the Bessi, which turn out to be bunkum (they’re not centaurs! They’re men on horses! Just look at the CG go!) As do the good intentions of Cotys and his right-hand Mullan.


This is tiresome stuff, only occasionally enlivened by the Brit and Nordic thesps on vacation. The most egregious sin is that we keep getting visual cues – via tall tales, dreams or hallucinations – of the sort every kid wants from a mythical movie; the labours depicted in an obviously CGI but still encouraging enough manner. It’s as if the tub of director actually wants to make a bomb (this didn’t bomb, but neither was it an out-and-out hit); the only noteworthy aspect of the not-centaur reveal is that I’m quite sure any watching 12 year old’s heart leapt at the thought they might finally see bona fide strange creatures, only for it to sink when realisation dawned.


As such, it’s an odd movie. Revisionist takes are ten-a-penny (remember Clive Owen as King Arthur, again shorn of magic?), and they are rarely successful on their own terms. This is no exception.  Its clueless director throws in an obligatory f-word (“Fucking centaurs”, a common oath in ancient Greece) and blends current colloquialisms with cod-Shakespearean tones. There’s zero finesse. Ratner’s action chops have improved a little since Last Stand. There’s an entertainingly mighty punch during Hercules’ first mano a mano dust-up, and a reasonably executed fight against the Bessi, but big set piece CG climax is dull.  


Somehow, Hercules cost $100m, and somehow it managed to make nearly $250m. Which, in Dwayne Johnson terms, is his most successful star picture (that isn’t a pre-existing franchise). Johnson’s okay. He’s ever affable, but he doesn’t have any edge. This may be why, as much as everyone likes him, he hasn’t become a bona fide star (he doesn’t get bums on seats). Ratner’s always been a moronic moviemaker, but now he can add a killjoy feather to his cap. As one of the characters says on hearing Iolaus stories, “What a load of crap!” Which just about sums up Hercules’ director’s career.



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…

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…

We’re not owners here, Karen. We’re just passing through.

Out of Africa (1985)
I did not warm to Out of Africa on my initial viewing, which would probably have been a few years after its theatrical release. It was exactly as the publicity warned, said my cynical side; a shallow-yet-bloated, awards-baiting epic romance. This was little more than a well-dressed period chick flick, the allure of which was easily explained by its lovingly photographed exotic vistas and Robert Redford rehearsing a soothing Timotei advert on Meryl Streep’s distressed locks. That it took Best Picture only seemed like confirmation of it as all-surface and no substance. So, on revisiting the film, I was curious to see if my tastes had “matured” or if it deserved that dismissal. 

Life is like a box of timelines. You feel me?

Russian Doll Season One
(SPOILERS) It feels like loading the dice to proclaim something necessarily better because it’s female-driven, but that’s the tack The Hollywood Reporter took with its effusive review of Russian Doll, suggesting “although Nadia goes on a similar journey of self-discovery to Bill Murray’s hackneyed reporter in Groundhog Day, the fact that the show was created, written by and stars women means that it offers up a different, less exploitative and far more thoughtful angle” (than the predominately male-centric entries in the sub-genre). Which rather sounds like Rosie Knight changing the facts to fit her argument. And ironic, given star Natasha Lyonne has gone out of her way to stress the show’s inclusive message. Russian Dollis good, but the suggestion that “unlike its predecessors (it) provides a thoughtfulness, authenticity and honesty which makes it inevitable end (sic) all the more powerful” is cobblers.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

Even after a stake was driven through its heart, there’s still interest.

Prediction 2019 Oscars
Shockingly, as in I’m usually much further behind, I’ve missed out on only one of this year’s Best Picture nominees– Vice isn’t yet my vice, it seems – in what is being suggested, with some justification, as a difficult year to call. That might make for must-see appeal, if anyone actually cared about the movies jostling for pole position. If it were between Black Panther and Bohemian Rhapsody (if they were even sufficiently up to snuff to deserve a nod in the first place), there might be a strange fascination, but Joe Public don’t care about Roma, underlined by it being on Netflix and stillconspicuously avoided by subscribers (if it were otherwise, they’d be crowing about viewing figures; it’s no Bird Box, that’s for sure).

We’re looking for a bug no one’s seen before. Some kind of smart bug.

Starship Troopers (1997)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven’s sci-fi trio of Robocop, Total Recall and Starship Troopers are frequently claimed to be unrivalled in their genre, but it’s really only the first of them that entirely attains that rarefied level. Discussion and praise of Starship Troopers is generally prefaced by noting that great swathes of people – including critics and cast members – were too stupid to realise it was a satire. This is a bit of a Fight Club one, certainly for anyone from the UK (Verhoeven commented “The English got it though. I remember coming out of Heathrow and seeing the posters, which were great. They were just stupid lines about war from the movie. I thought, ‘Finally someone knows how to promote this.’”) who needed no kind of steer to recognise what the director was doing. And what he does, he does splendidly, even if, at times, I’m not sure he entirely sustains a 129-minute movie, since, while both camp and OTT, Starship Troopers is simultaneously required t…

If you could just tell me what those eyes have seen.

Alita: Battle Angel (2019)
(SPOILERS) Robert Rodriguez’ film of James Cameron’s at-one-stage-planned film of Yukito Kishiro’s manga Gunnm on the one hand doesn’t feel overly like a Rodriguez film, in that it’s quite polished, so certainly not of the sort he’s been making of late – definitely a plus – but on the other, it doesn’t feel particularly like a Jimbo flick either. What it does well, it mostly does very well – the action, despite being as thoroughly steeped in CGI as Avatar – but many of its other elements, from plotting to character to romance, are patchy or generic at best. Despite that, there’s something likeable about the whole ludicrously expensive enterprise that is Alita: Battle Angel, a willingness to be its own kind of distinctive misfit misfire.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.