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

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…

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

No one understands the lonely perfection of my dreams.

Ridley Scott Ridders Ranked
During the '80s, I anticipated few filmmakers' movies more than Ridley Scott's; those of his fellow xenomorph wrangler James Cameron, perhaps. In both cases, that eagerness for something equalling their early efforts receded as they studiously managed to avoid the heights they had once reached. Cameron's output dropped off a cliff after he won an Oscar. Contrastingly, Scott's surged like never before when his film took home gold. Which at least meant he occasionally delivered something interesting, but sadly, it was mostly quantity over quality. Here are the movies Scott has directed in his career thus far - and with his rate of productivity, another 25 by the time he's 100 may well be feasible – ranked from worst to best.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

This is it. This is the moment of my death.

Fearless (1993)
Hollywood tends to make a hash of any exploration of existential or spiritual themes. The urge towards the simplistic, the treacly or the mawkishly uplifting, without appropriate filtering or insight, usually overpowers even the best intentions. Rarely, a movie comes along that makes good on its potential and then, more than likely, it gets completely ignored. Such a fate befell Fearless, Peter Weir’s plane crash survivor-angst film, despite roundly positive critical notices. For some reason audiences were willing to see a rubgy team turn cannibal in Alive, but this was a turn-off? Yet invariably anyone who has seen Fearless speaks of it in glowing terms, and rightly so.

Weir’s pictures are often thematically rich, more anchored by narrative than those of, say, Terrence Malick but similarly preoccupied with big ideas and their expression. He has a rare grasp of poetry, symbolism and the mythic. Weir also displays an acute grasp of the subjective mind-set, and possesses …

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

Dirty is exactly why you're here.

Sicario 2: Soldado aka Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018)
(SPOILERS) I wasn't among the multitude greeting the first Sicario with rapturous applause. It felt like a classic case of average material significantly lifted by the diligence of its director (and cinematographer and composer), but ultimately not all that. Any illusions that this gritty, violent, tale of cynicism and corruption – all generally signifiers of "realism" – in waging the War on Drugs had a degree of credibility well and truly went out the window when we learned that Benicio del Toro's character Alejandro Gillick wasn't just an unstoppable kickass ninja hitman; he was a grieving ex-lawyer turned unstoppable kickass ninja hitman. Sicario 2: Soldadograzes on further difficult-to-digest conceits, so in that respect is consistent, and – ironically – in some respects fares better than its predecessor through being more thoroughly genre-soaked and so avoiding the false doctrine of "revealing" …

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog