Skip to main content

I was in MI-5 just long enough to realise, you can do good, or you can do well. Sooner or later, they make you choose.

Spooks: The Greater Good
(2015)

(SPOILERS) The last time I watched Spooks (or MI-5, as it is known in many countries) can have been no more recently than 2007, as Rupert Penry-Whatshishyphenate was still starring, and he got blown up soon after (as is wont to happen in their risk-friendly business). As the series carried on until 2010, and I only sporadically watched it before that, you could conclusively say I was only ever the most casual of viewers. It was okay, very much what you might expect of a BBC with one eye on the US (and the success of 24), having lost confidence in how to make their own style of television. Spooks could never really getting that the same kind of scale or conviction of threat as its American cousins, which rather worked against it. At its worst, it all looked rather silly, which undermined what was always the best aspect of British spydom: the intrigue itself. Spooks: The Greater Good, suffers from exactly the same problems.


It even has coloned title, taking its cues from the Mission: Impossible approach. Those films work (well, except for the second one) because they are big, breathless, and have sufficient self-awareness to rattle on through their essential ludicrousness and make that a virtue. Spooks has no such luck; it's one nod to the less than earnest is a white cat as "evidence" of a suspect's villainy. Even 24 (okay, I ducked out of the last couple of seasons), which was desperately serious, generally succeeded by detaching its lead character from reality. Jack Bauer would be successively hurled into bubble realities where all he had to do was survive 40 minutes at a time. Spooks is unable to escape its limitations. Everything, from the roving camera mimicry to the thrall to London landmarks, is asking to be scoffed at for presuming it can compete with the big boys. Instead, when the umpteenth batch of terrorists arrive intent on blowing up a landmark, it invites derision.


Spooks: The Greater Good does understand, however, that the most convincing way to present the intelligence services is to show them as inherently corrupt. In decades past, this was always a result of moles, or the cynicism of those in command; today it’s simply about corporate respect and branding. The makers know there’s insufficient reason to buy into the threat from foreign powers; it’s a bit passé.  So, while The Greater Good comes replete with a stereotypical Middle Eastern terrorist (one who can be manipulated on account of his wife; very Bauer-esque), it can’t rely on that for sustenance. We the jaded public are so indifferent, we’d more need convincing that the intelligence services weren’t nefarious and working against out best interests. As such, there’s a notional recognition that out greatest enemy is really ourselves. While that’s also there in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, The Greater Good offers merely lip service, or rather gloss. Surface detail, rather than carefully hewn substance, and a wilful lack of political relevance.


The Greater Good builds its plot on a series of half-baked tropes that don’t hold up for more than several seconds when sweated under harsh lights. Instead of working from a baseline of what British spy fare does well (John Le Carré, Len Deighton) and building in a few grand set pieces, we’re asled to suffer a series of WTFs. So someone in the MI-5 hierarchy allows terrorist Adem Qasim (Elyes Gabel) to escape custody and the reason is… they want the agency to collapse and be taken over by the CIA. As plot motivators go, it’s on the wispy side. So too is stalwart Harry Pearce (Peter Firth), doing dodgy deals to get to the bottom of this conspiracy. He goes so far overboard that he gives Qasim the keys to intelligence community kingdom in exchange for calling off a planned bombing (the prize Harry has requested before this is no easier to swallow; a telephone number that may well be completely useless). It doesn’t help that everything takes place with a thunderously straight face.


Harry’s the kind of maverick, hard-choices taking fellow intended to function as a British Bauer. The guy who will make the sacrifices, take the risks no one else can, because he believes the ends justify the means. Such flagrant copying of the 24 modus operandi would be all well and good if Harry could muster an ounce of Jack’s grit and determination. Or even if he could merely summon the clipped severity of a Le Carré spymaster. But Firth is a drab, stodgy presence, and as commanding as a custard eclair. Obviously, Spooks devotees will disagree, and as a lead he’s admittedly more agreeable than someone as wet and non-present as Clark Gregg in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. But that’s hardly an endorsement. It’s particularly a problem for a small screen hero pumped up to movie size, where the attention is all on him. Firth hasn’t had to deal with this kind of scrutiny since Lifeforce.


Helping Harry out is special guest young buck Game of Thrones guy Kit Harington as Will Holloway. Will has history with Harry, inevitably of the “you knew my father” variety, and the movie’s to-and-fro “Can I trust you or can’t I?” poise quickly gets stale. The real question isn’t whether Will can trust Harry, it’s why/how Harry is continually given licence to get up to all sorts of unconscionable behaviour. Harington’s doing his best to score a succession of movie roles to ensure his post-Thrones longevity, but thus far they’ve been decidedly second-rate. He’s a likable presence, but not a weighty one. If he can’t galvanise himself towards a signature part equal to the agreeable Jon Snow, he’ll be consigned to supporting roles in no time.


This is Bharat Nalluri’s fifth feature. It’s perhaps telling that his best received is Mrs Pettigrew Lives for a Day, decidedly not of the action genre to which he has staked his name (including the third entry in The Crow series). He directed the Spooks pilot all the way back in 2002, so they presumably thought they owed him. Nothing about the direction is bad per se, but nothing about is more than standard issue for this kind of fare. Lots of handheld camera, quick cutting etc. 


To be fair to Nalluri, he has a better sense of spatial geography than many who do this kind of thing, but he can’t disguise the holes in the plot. The highlights are a chase round Heathrow and a desperate attempt to eliminate a sniper during a meet, although blowing up David Harewood and shooting TV regular Lara Pulver maintain the Spooks agenda for shock deaths (which makes them less shocking, if you’re expecting them).


Jennifer Ehle is in there; she’s always note-perfect, it’s just a shame the parts don’t tend to equal her talent. Tuppence Middleton is surely a next-big-Brit-thing in Hollywood any day now, and plays the questionable character line well until the writers fail her. 


Really, the only singularly great role is Tim McInnery’s sneering, MI-5 superior Mace. There’s a touch of continuity here, as the character showed up in four episodes, the last of which aired nearly a decade ago. Mace is everything Harry isn’t in terms of viewer engagement. Rude, witty, abrasive, and even rather brave when it comes down to it. McInnery would never be cast as the leading man, but if The Greater Good had focussed on him venting spleen at wholly unsuspecting terrorists it might feasibly have been a great movie.


It probably wasn’t a bad idea on paper to bring back Spooks. When there’s a chance of a TV transition making a mint (like The Inbetweeners), it could easily be regarded as a no-brainer. But Spooks: The Greater Good isn’t sufficiently different. It’s borrowed writers from the last few seasons of the show, and a director from the first few. As such, it follows the restrained tradition of British big screen adaptations, rather than the flourish of US ones. Which is exactly what the show didn’t want to do at inception. It so desperately wanted to be our answer to their TV. All the cinema incarnation has done is show that its characters (or more particularly Harry) are ill suited to grand gestures. And that, for a British spy movie on a budget to really engage, it needs to put its script foot forward first, rather than striving for sub-Bond/Bourne spectacle.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I don’t need to be held together, I’m fine just floating through space like Andy.

Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond (2017)
Or, to give it its full subtitle, Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond – The Story of Jim Carrey & Andy Kaufman Featuring a Very Special, Contractually Obligated Mention of Tony Clifton. Carrey’s in a contradictory place just now, on the one hand espousing his commitment to a spiritual path and enlightened/ing state, on the other being sued in respect of his ex-girlfriend’s suicide and accompanying allegations regarding his behaviour. That behaviour – in a professional context – and his place of consciousness are the focus of Jim & Andy, and an oft-repeated mantra (great for motivational speeches) that “I learned that you can fail at what you don’t love, so you may as well do what you love. There’s really no choice to be made”. The results are consequently necessarily contradictory, but always fascinating.

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…

Exit bear, pursued by an actor.

Paddington 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Paddington 2 is every bit as upbeat and well-meaning as its predecessor. It also has more money thrown at it, a much better villain (an infinitely better villain) and, in terms of plotting, is more developed, offering greater variety and a more satisfying structure. Additionally, crucially, it succeeds in offering continued emotional heft and heart to the Peruvian bear’s further adventures. It isn’t, however, quite as funny.

Even suggesting such a thing sounds curmudgeonly, given the universal applause greeting the movie, but I say that having revisited the original a couple of days prior and found myself enjoying it even more than on first viewing. Writer-director Paul King and co-writer Simon Farnaby introduce a highly impressive array of set-ups with huge potential to milk their absurdity to comic ends, but don’t so much squander as frequently leave them undertapped.

Paddington’s succession of odd jobs don’t quite escalate as uproariously as they migh…

No, by the sky demon! I say no!

Doctor Who The Pirate Planet
I doubt Pennant Roberts, popular as he undoubtedly was with the cast, was anyone’s idea of a great Doctor Who director. Introduced to the show by Philip Hinchliffe – a rare less-than-sterling move – he made a classic story on paper (The Face of Evil) just pretty good, and proceeded to translate Robert Holmes’ satirical The Sun Makers merely functionally. When he returned to the show during the ‘80s, he was responsible for two entirely notorious productions, in qualitative terms. But The Pirate Planet is the story where his slipshod, rickety, make-do approach actually works… most of the time (look at the surviving footage of Shada, where there are long passages of straight narrative, and it’s evident Roberts wasn’t such a good fit). Douglas Adams script is so packed, both with plot and humour, that its energy is inbuilt; there’s no need to rely on a craftsman to imbue tension or pace. There is a caveat, of course: if your idea of Doctor Who requires a straig…

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 …

This place sure isn’t like that one in Austria.

Brawl in Cell Block 99 (2017)
(SPOILERS) Brawl in Cell Block 99 is most definitely cut from the same cloth as writer-director-co-composer Craig S Zahler’s previous flick Bone Tomahawk: an inexorable, slow-burn suspenser that works equally well as a character drama. That is, when it isn’t revelling in sporadic bursts of ultraviolence, including a finale in a close-quartered pit of hell. If there’s nothing quite as repellent as that scene in Bone Tomahawk, it’s never less than evident that this self-professedchild of Fangoria” loves his grue. He also appears to have a predilection for, to use his own phraseology, less politically correct content.

We’re not in a prophecy… We’re in a stolen Toyota Corolla.

Bright (2017)
(SPOILERS) Is Bright shite? The lion’s share of the critics would have you believe so, including a quick-on-the-trigger Variety, which gave it one of the few good reviews but then pronounced it DOA in order to announce their intention for Will Smith to run for the Oval Office (I’m sure he’ll take it under advisement). I don’t really see how the movie can’t end up as a “success”; most people who have Netflix will at least be curious about an all-new $90m movie with a (waning, but only because he’s keeps making bad choices) major box office star. As to whether it’s any good, Bright’s about on a level with most of director David Ayer’s movies, in that it’s fast, flashy and fitfully entertaining, but also very muddled, mixed-up and, no matter how much cash is thrown at it, still resembles the kind of thing that usually ends up straight to video (making Netflix his ideal home).

This is how we do action in Uganda.

Who Killed Captain Alex? (2010)
Uganda’s first action movie”, Who Killed Captain Alex? is a cheerfully ultra-low budget, wholly amateur picture made by Nabwana Isaac Godfrey Geoffrey. It’s the kind of thing you and your mates would make and (rightly) expect no one else to ever watch (aside from a few hundred hits on YouTube). But stick a frequently hilarious running commentary over the top from VJ (video joker) Emme, and it this home-ish move takes on something approaching the spoofy quality of What’s Up Tiger Lilly?

Nothing in the world can stop me now!

This is not going to go the way you think!

Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
(SPOILERS) The most interesting aspect of Star Wars: The Last Jedi, particularly given the iron fist Lucasfilm has wielded over the spinoffs, is how long a leash Rian Johnson has been granted to tear apart the phonier, Original Trilogy-lite aspects of The Force Awakens. The resulting problem is that the areas where he’s evidently inspired are very good (almost anything Force related, basically), but there are consequently substantial subplots that simply don’t work, required as they are to pay lip service to characters or elements he feels have nowhere to go. The positives undoubtedly tip the balance significantly in The Last Jedi’s favour, but they also mean it hasn’t a hope of attaining the all-round status of IV and V (still the out-of-reach grail for the franchise, quality-wise). Which is a shame, as thematically, this has far more going on, handled with far greater acumen, than anything in the interim.