Skip to main content

Never tangle with a Cybernaut.

The Avengers
5.18: Return of the Cybernauts

Avengers sequels not featuring Brodny are a rarity, and as obvious a no-brainer as this follow-up to last season's crowd-pleaser is, it rather underlines that the show was never at its best when returning to past glories (not least by churning out straight remakes). Return of the Cybernauts at least boasts a couple of elements that put it above its predecessor, however, even if the improvement is very much relative.


SteedYou like Beresford, don't you?
Mrs PeelYes. Don't you?
SteedHe has a good line in claret. Particularly the '29.
Mrs PeelNothing to dislike is there?
SteedNo, but if I try hard enough, I’m sure I can find something.

First and foremost is special guest star Peter Cushing, playing Paul Beresford, the brother, albeit not in surname, of Michael Gough from The Cybernauts, bent on getting revenge for the latter's untimely demise ("A rhapsody of suffering will be visited"). Why doesn't he just send his dapper-hatted robot servant to do the job, rather than assembling a coterie of scientists to come up with some half-baked super-scheme? Well, where would the rest of the episode be if he did? There are lots of less-than-convincing elements here, but director Robert Day keeps the episode zippy and stylish, such that even the more irksome elements – the contrivance of Beresford having impressed himself upon Emma's life, and she being interested in him in return – don't become overwhelmingly off-putting.


SteedI must say, you're very much at home here.
Mrs PeelPaul is very hospitable.
SteedEspecially if you’re fair, female and quite beautiful.
Mrs PeelYou're quite pretty yourself. I happen to like him. He's civilised, good to be with and interesting to talk to.
Steed: And there rests the case for the defence.

The same applies to the Avengers' alarmingly debonair attitude towards passing on their top-secret business to the very man who wants them dead, with the justification of "Well, it'll be in all the papers tomorrow anyway". Nevertheless, Macnee does a strong studied line in guarded unease at Emma's dalliance ("Steed, you're jealous"; "Oh no, I wouldn't say that, Mrs Peel. Just thoughtful"), and Cushing’s good at turning on the charm. Like Christopher Lee a few episodes back, though, it isn't a part that really makes the most of him, reliant on standard villain utterances and antics, while the tentative romance doesn't even slightly convince.


Mrs PeelNever tangle with a Cybernaut.
SteedTangle? I was almost decapitated.

There's only one Cybernaut this time, but it's remarkably effective, and despite sticking out like a sore thumb, manages to evade detection, both entering premises and leaving them with its prey (the scientists). Somehow the Cybernaut can track down its targets by their heartbeat (astounding!) Which explains why it doesn't kill first Steed and then Emma when they get in the way.


BeresfordNo ordinary watch, Mr Steed. It controls the will. The entire nervous system.
SteedBut does it keep good time?

The scientists' eventually-hatched plan involves turning the Avengers into automatons – a bit of an unlikely lark, but that's Cybernautical activities all over – with the promise that "They will not die and yet they'll wish they were dead. My brother would approve"; "Fully aware but unable to resist. They will be no more than puppets". The first victim is Emma ("Is there anything more gratifying than obedience by a beautiful woman?"), who gives Steed a bit of a thrashing until he manages to put the controlling watch on the Cybernaut, which in turn goes berserk and crushes Paul to death.


Some notables in the supporting line up include returning Frederick Jaeger (2.11: Death of a Great Dane) as Beresford's right-hand scientist Benson (formerly Dr Armstrong's), and as the kidnapped scientists, Fulton Mackay (The SiluriansFraggle RockPorridge) is particularly standout as the appeasing, self-preserving Professor Chadwick, Charles Tingwell (3.3: The Nutshell) is Dr Neville, Roger Hammond (The ChaseMawdryn Undead) the unfortunate Dr Russell, and Richard Kiel-alike Anthony Dutton plays Dr Garnett (who makes a brave break for it, even getting as far as Emma's apartment before he's snatched back). Also appearing is Noel Colman (2.13: Traitor in Zebra) as Conroy.


RosieHe attacked me. I could tell I inflamed him. His eyes were all misty with desire.

My favourite turn comes from Aimi MacDonald (Suzi Starlight in Rentaghost) as Garnett's supremely ditzy secretary Rosie, entirely convinced of her own irresistibility ("Ravishing blonde beauty defends her honour to the last. Well, I would have done" she says, imagining the newspaper headlines) and proud of her accompanying brushes with the law ("Do you know, I've got a super bikini. It's ever-so revealing. Do you know, I've nearly been arrested twice wearing it?”)


SteedThat's the first thing Great Britain's ever got into orbit.
Mrs PeelShall I butter them, or preserved them for posterity?

Nice coda too, with Steed attempting to fix Emma's toaster as he waxes lyrical over the innovations of the twentieth century, only for the "mended" device to send a couple of slices of toast through the ceiling. Return of the Cybernauts is sort of what you expect from a slumming-it colour Rigg episode; polished and serviceably delivered - its funny seeing a Cybernaut stomping through a summery English pasture – but really rather forgettable, even with its feature "monster" and famous guest actor.





















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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.