Skip to main content

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers
5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable

With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.


Doctor Who went there with Planet of the Giants in 1964 and Irwin Allen based a whole series in Land of the Giants, while Fantastic Voyage miniaturised to a more extreme degree in '66. I wonder if the greater informant of this one being dusted off was the Incredible Shrinking Master episode I Dream of Jeannie that aired in the first quarter of '67. It has to be said that, while there's nothing quite as indelible here as Larry Hagman being menaced by a giant cat (although Nicholas Courtney's daft crash helmet does rather burn itself on the retina), the episode rattles along pleasantly enough.


ChiversSir Gerald's been delayed.
RushtonDelayed?
ChiversAbsolutely weighed down with a load of rubbish.
RushtonRubbish?
ChiversBureaucratic rubbish.


The villainy is strictly low rent, though, courtesy of Dr Chivers (Francis Matthews, 4.17: The Thirteenth Hole) attempting to sell secrets – and later, a new shrinking ray created by Professor Rushton (Noel Howlett) – to bumbling Russian Brodny-type Shaffer (Ronald Radd, 2.8: Bullseye, 3.23: The Outside-In Man). 


Chivers' methods in aid of a quick buck are alarmingly casual, from putting Sir Gerald (Kevin Stoney, The Daleks' Master PlanInvasionRevenge of the CybermenAnimalsHostage) in a shoebox and dumping him in the trash, to washing poor Gifford (Courtney, 2.5: Propellant 23) down a drain. Later, when a shrunk Mrs Peel goes missing, the response is a casual "Forget it, we can spray the whole grounds later".


Mrs PeelI better be getting into my rifling Rushton's desk kit.

Indeed, little of Philip Levene's plot stands up to scrutiny, probably hoping that the over-sized sets will distract our attention. Which they do, for the most part. Mrs Peel isn't doing an awful lot during the first half, such that I wondered if this was a symptom of her imminent exit of the show, particularly since Jane Merrow (as Susan, Rushton's daughter; she was also in The Schizoid Man, and apparently Patrick McGoohan liked her, which is high praise indeed) was screen-tested for her replacement. 


SchaefferWonderful vehicle, doctor. How are you going to move it? In your raincoat pocket?

Accordingly, the bulk of the shrinkage concerns Steed, who finds his way into the prototype Saracen SV7 armoured car before its reduced in scale (so Chivers can pass it to Schaeffer). Quite why Steed go to look at the SV7 when it's on display isn't clear, apart from enabling him to find the miniature Rolls sitting on it. We're introduced to the most expensive set, Shaeffer's desktop, at just past the halfway mark, and inevitably have to keep returning to it to make good use of the phone (also scene prior to Courtney's demise, which comes by way of action man hands). 


Mrs PeelI'm not sure I shouldn't keep you like this. After all, it's one way to bag a man.

Quips abound when Emma locates her diminutive colleague ("Tell me, Steed, is everything to scale?": Fnar) but it isn't a very good episode for her self-esteem, since she's mistaken for Susan and very easily kidnapped, and then rather carelessly gets shrunk at about the same time Steed is reconstituted. Steed meanwhile shows his penmanship skills, making a remarkable impact on the fragile ankles of heavies (one of whom is engrossed in Jane Austen's Emma).


SteedWell, I must say, Mrs Peel, the pen is mightier than the sword.
Mrs PeelWell, between us, we've written them off.

He also has to avoid the stench of Shaeffer's now excessively large cigar. There are some nice moments with the latter earlier, who is struggling to impress his peers by demanding random medals be pinned to his chest ("For bravery! Conspicuous bravery!"), leading to bemused queries ("What lovely medals. Is that for… endurance? Crimean War? You’re very well preserved"). Richard Leech (2.13: Traitor in Zebra, 3.18: Dressed to Kill) also appears, as an unlikely colonel. 

  
Ending with Steed wistfully considering things that could be reduced in size ("Miniskirts": "Wishful thinking, I'm afraid") and handing Emma a tiny brolly, Mission… is an agreeable end to the season, but like much of it, it fails to quite go that extra distance Season Four did; its content stands out less than its switch to colour.
























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

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…

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

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…

Stupid adult hands!

Shazam! (2019)
(SPOILERS) Shazam! is exactly the kind of movie I hoped it would be, funny, scary (for kids, at least), smart and delightfully dumb… until the final act. What takes place there isn’t a complete bummer, but right now, it does pretty much kill any interest I have in a sequel.

I have discovered the great ray that first brought life into the world.

Frankenstein (1931)
(SPOILERS) To what extent do Universal’s horror classics deserved to be labelled classics? They’re from the classical Hollywood period, certainly, but they aren’t unassailable titans that can’t be bettered – well unless you were Alex Kurtzman and Chris Morgan trying to fashion a Dark Universe with zero ingenuity. And except maybe for the sequel to the second feature in their lexicon. Frankenstein is revered for several classic scenes, boasts two mesmerising performances, and looks terrific thanks to Arthur Edeson’s cinematography, but there’s also sizeable streak of stodginess within its seventy minutes.

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.

Only an idiot sees the simple beauty of life.

Forrest Gump (1994)
(SPOILERS) There was a time when I’d have made a case for, if not greatness, then Forrest Gump’s unjust dismissal from conversations regarding its merits. To an extent, I still would. Just not nearly so fervently. There’s simply too much going on in the picture to conclude that the manner in which it has generally been received is the end of the story. Tarantino, magnanimous in the face of Oscar defeat, wasn’t entirely wrong when he suggested to Robert Zemeckis that his was a, effectively, subversive movie. Its problem, however, is that it wants to have its cake and eat it.

Do not mention the Tiptoe Man ever again.

Glass (2019)
(SPOILERS) If nothing else, one has to admire M Night Shyamalan’s willingness to plough ahead regardless with his straight-faced storytelling, taking him into areas that encourage outright rejection or merciless ridicule, with all the concomitant charges of hubris. Reactions to Glass have been mixed at best, but mostly more characteristic of the period he plummeted from his must-see, twist-master pedestal (during the period of The Village and The Happening), which is to say quite scornful. And yet, this is very clearly the story he wanted to tell, so if he undercuts audience expectations and leaves them dissatisfied, it’s most definitely not a result of miscalculation on his part. For my part, while I’d been prepared for a disappointment on the basis of the critical response, I came away very much enjoying the movie, by and large.

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…