Skip to main content

The simple fact is, your killer is in your midst. Your killer is one of you.

The Avengers
5.12: The Superlative Seven

I’ve always rather liked this one, basic as it is in premise. If the title consciously evokes The Magnificent Seven, to flippant effect, the content is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, but played out with titans of their respective crafts – including John Steed, naturally – encountering diminishing returns. It also boasts a cast of soon-to-be-famous types (Charlotte Rampling, Brian Blessed, Donald Sutherland), and the return of one John Hollis (2.16: Warlock, 4.7: The Cybernauts). Kanwitch ROCKS!


JesselYou are convinced?
KanwitchPartially convinced.
JesselI can create super beings. It really works. 
KanwitchIf your protégée beats all six of them, then you shall have all the financing you want. If.

The Superlative Seven saw Brian Clemens redressing Dressed to Kill, with its costume party setting, but if it inevitably suffers from comparison to that episode, it avoids feeling like an unwarranted retread the way others have (The Correct Way to Kill). Still, we know from the start roughly what’s going on in this one; it's the specifics of the perpetrator(s) that are obscure, and it's especially gratifying that this turns out to be a scam on the part of Jessel (Sutherland) to sell his super soldiers to Kanwitch (who, as noted, rocks). 


The assassins obviously have some skillz, as seen in the opening when Kanwitch's champion (Terry Plummer) is dispatched, so I guess Jessel would have delivered something, if Kanwitch had taken the bait ("With your country's financial assistance, I can make an army of assassins"). Or maybe he would just have taken the money and run. I'm not sure you’d have figured Sutherland was destined for greatness from this, but it's always interesting to see him pre-Hawkeye Pierce.


KanwitchThe simple fact is, your killer is in your midst. Your killer is one of you.

Everyone – barring Emma, who drops by later – is bundled into a plane that turns out to be on automatic pilot, all having been given a different host’s name (Steed is under the illusion his invitation is from Sir George Robinson – "He's always going up the Amazon and getting lost"). It’s an "acid test"; these experts in their own manner, with records of courage and fortitude, are to fight one of Jessel's unbeatable opponents, an expert in all forms of combat; their chances of survival will depend on their own individual alertness and ingenuity against a killer among them.

Their ranks consist of: 


Jason Wade (James Maxwell, 3.23: The Outside-In Man) as two-faced Janus, assumed to be a big game hunter (there seem to be a few of those in The Avengers) but actually admits he's the offender off the bat ("I track things down, Mr Steed. And then, I dispatch them as quickly as possible"). He appears to be the fourth man down (they all end up in upright coffins), but it turns out he's faking it. And when he does buy the farm (Macnee's stunt double puts up his best fighting moves yet, before lobbing a spear into Wade's chest), he's soon resurrected, on account of his twin taking his place (the costumes are mostly obvious reflections of the wearer here, barring Steed's 19thcentury general and Dayton's executioner).


Max Hardy (Hugh Manning, 4.16: The Thirteenth Hole) dressed as a WWI German officer, runs a fencing school, and is the third slain (stabbed in a sword fight).


(Camp) Freddie Richards (Leon Greene) "claims to be the world’s strongest man" (you wouldn't know it to look at him) and is dressed as a fancy-dress strong man; he succumbs first (a broken back).


Joe Smith (Gary Hope, 1.25: Change of Bait, 3.12: November Five) is a matador dressed as a matador ("the best of all British bullfighters" – how many can there be?) He's done in second, warding off an oncoming cart before, in particularly idiotic fashion, getting lanced with a pitchfork.


Mark Dayton (Blessed) comes on dressed as executioner (complete, initially, with concealing hood) and is expert in unarmed combat. Dayton's the fourth to pop his clogs (if you don't include Wade, and on that basis is the final innocent party to go down). Booming Brian is particularly good at making Dayton’s suspicion of Steed aggressively persecuting.


HannahI'm Wilde.
SteedAre you? Every minute of the day?

Mrs Hannah Wilde (Rampling) is clad as a cowgirl and is an expert shot, having represented Britain. She doesn't get killed, because killing a girl would be unsporting. But she does hit Steed on the head, very unsportingly:

Mrs PeelWhere is Steed?
HannahBack at the house. I'm afraid I clobbered him.
Mrs PeelNaughty. He won't like that.


Obviously, they don't do the sensible thing of everyone sticking together, or the masterplan would collapse in upon itself, but the twist of the double is effective, and the reliable Sidney Hayers makes the most of the studio setting such that it adds rather than detracts from the claustrophobic atmosphere.


Dayton:What about you? What sets you out from the crowd?
Steed: (straightening Richards’ bent poker) Oh, maybe the way I hold my umbrella.

Like Epic, this gives Rigg a break to focus on Steed, and he's agreeably unflappable at the outset ("Just getting myself a drink, to ease the tension"), finishing off one over-confident Wade ("What shall it be for you, then? The bullet, the garrotte, the knife perhaps?") before succumbing to Wilde's gun butt. He also demolishes Jessel with a candlestick after Hannah has shot the gun from his hand, making Steed more into brute force and getting his hands dirty than we've seen for quite a while.


The opening features a shamelessly interior piece of woodland where Steed is (plastic) duck shooting (with his name on it), before Emma quacks and tells him "You're needed"; we're back there for the coda, as Emma blasts teddies, from the sky, one of which contains a bottle of champers, naturally. So she's obliged to bring down a couple of glasses to accompany it.



















Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

You're waterboarding me.

The Upside (2017)
(SPOILERS) The list of US remakes of foreign-language films really ought to be considered a hiding to nothing, given the ratio of flops to unqualified successes. There’s always that chance, though, of a proven property (elsewhere) hitting the jackpot, and every exec hopes, in the case of French originals, for another The Birdcage, Three Men and a Baby, True Lies or Down and Out in Beverly Hills. Even a Nine Months, Sommersby or Unfaithful will do. Rather than EdTV. Or Sorcerer. Or Eye of the Beholder. Or Brick Mansions. Or Chloe. Or Intersection (Richard Gere is clearly a Francophile). Or Just Visiting. Or The Man with One Red Shoe. Or Mixed Nuts. Or Original Sin. Or Oscar. Or Point of No Return. Or Quick Change. Or Return to Paradise. Or Under Suspicion. Or Wicker Park. Or Father’s Day.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his …

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…

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

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…

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities (1990)
(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.