Skip to main content

You have a fine ear, Mr Steed. I hope you hang onto it.

The Avengers
6.32: Take-Over

Another first-rate Avengers from Terry Nation, this – out of six for the series, half of them are classics – with the kind of nasty home-invasion premise that has been frequent fodder for psychological horror flicks of the last couple of decades. Only, in this case, in much more genteel form. I don’t think it’s quite as strong as Legacy of Death and Take Me To Your Leader, but it’s near enough.


Grenville: I can’t bear raised voices. And hysteria in a man is very unbecoming.

Fenton Grenville (Tom Adams, 1.17: Death on the Slipway, 1.21: The Far Distant Dead, Vorshak in Warriors of the Deep) is an entirely charmless but perfectly cultured Avengers villain, meaning that his cruel edge stands out, where others usually exude a certain degree of winning charisma. 


Grenville: I don’t think they want any coffee.
Sexton: I don’t blame them. It’s awful.

His companions aren’t much better. Sexton (Garfield Morgan, 5.1: The Fear Merchants, 6.13: Game – he looks a little like Jimmi Simpson from the Westworld TV show) is his righthand man and a budding cook (the first thing he does is complain about the coffee, later preparing dinner). 


Lomax (Keith Buckley) has the look of a rooftop assassin with a sniper’s rifle, so it’s appropriate he’s in charge of firing the deadly missile at the conference. 


Then there’s Circe (Hilary Pritchard) who seems to be modelled fruit-loop-wise on Ola in 3.7: Don’t Look Behind You (“Oh, I always use my left hand when I meet people. It confuses them”).


The manner in which Grenville imposes himself on the Bassett house as if he owns the place, encouraging Laura (Elizabeth Sellars) to assume her husband Bill (Michael Gwynn, Lord Melbury in the first Fawlty Towers, A Touch of Class) knows him until Bill arrives oblivious, is chilling. There’s a sense he could take deadly measures at any moment, which he does when major domo Groom (John Comer) meets his end via an injected phosphor bomb. 


Grenville: I’m glad it wasn’t either of you who made the break. You’re such delightful people.

I wasn’t entirely clear on the efficacy of this strategy, developed by Circe (“It’s nice to be nearly a genius when you’re as pretty as I am”), since the bombs are triggered by the flick of Grenville’s lighter. There’s no indication that each implant has a different frequency, so why weren’t the Bassetts killed when Groom’s went off? And why, at the climax, when Steed is threatening Grenville (a bomb is stuck to the villain’s neck – for whatever reason he seems reluctant to pull it off), doesn’t he call Steed’s bluff, since surely his friends would be killed as well?


Steed: I haven’t seen a room clear so quickly since Freddy Firman took a live skunk into the Turkish baths.

If I have a major criticism of the episode, it’s a similar one to Avengers Forever (which is surprising, as I often don’t agree with their takes); Steed is too easily ruffled, and not just physically. His arrival is – celebrating Christmas in February, a nice touch that he and Bill lost track of time while held prisoner in Nanking during the WWII – at first, exactly what you’d hope for, besting the irritated Grenville in party games (“You ought to leave here, Mr Steed. Fenton doesn’t like you at all”), trading flirtatious witticisms with mad Circe (“Do you think I’m pretty? I think I am. I think I could be very pretty”: “Who am I to argue with a lady?”; “I spent all my money on new noses”: “Well, everyone should have a hobby”) and prowling the house at night looking for evidence of foul play before being discovered by Grenville and trying to get the lowdown on whether he knows his Monets from his Renoirs (“It’s almost as if you were trying to catch me out, Mr Steed”).


Grenville: A hundred guineas, Mr Steed. For the man who makes the first kill of the day.

As a result, when Grenville challenges Steed to a hunt at dawn, one assumes this will build to his just being plain betterthan the bad guy (for example, 4.22: A Touch of Brimstone or 4.25: A Sense of History), outsmarting him on the field in a deadly duck hunt. Instead, Tezza decides to play things for something approaching realism – well, apart from the radio-detonated phosphor bombs and the silly missile in the turret room – and the promise of a hunt to the death ends up as a fizzle, with an injured Steed (no hallucinatory Emma as in 4.13: Silent Dust) hiding out while his shoe sinks in a bog and only showing up for the finale after Tara has arrived and been detained upon attempting to leave. 


Grenville: It was careless of me to leave Steed’s umbrella and hat. But it was even more careless of you to betray that you’d seen them. Very careless indeed, Miss King.

There are some nice moments during this, such as Special Branch arriving to check the place out, the only reason the Bassetts were kept alive in the first place (“You can go on living. You never know. They might come back”). There’s the familiar tension of will they/ won’t they say something. It’s at this point we learn the house was needed due to its proximity to an important event in the area (“I intend to assassinate the foreign ministers of several countries”). 


Tara: Well, how was your stay in the country?
Steed: I should have stayed in town. That’s the trouble with the country. Nothing ever happens.

Generally a fine episode then, with director Robert Fuest bring a similar claustrophobic feel to his earlier Pandora. The coda is a bit of a lame one, but at least the days of Tara giving Steed gooey eyes are long gone… What’s that? There’s one episode left...? Tara breaks a window playing invisible golf, so at least there’s a touch of Emma-era surrealism to it (“Oh pity. You should have used a Number Two iron. Or four”).











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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

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…

This is very cruel, Oskar. You're giving them hope. You shouldn't do that.

Schindler’s List (1993)
(SPOILERS) Such is the status of Schindler’s List, it all but defies criticism; it’s the worthiest of all the many worthy Best Picture Oscar winners, a film noble of purpose and sensitive in the treatment and depiction of the Holocaust as the backdrop to one man’s redemption. There is much to admire in Steven Spielberg’s film. But it is still a Steven Spielberg film. From a director whose driving impulse is the manufacture of popcorn entertainments, not intellectual introspection. Which means it’s a film that, for all its commendable features, is made to manipulate its audience in the manner of any of his “lesser” genre offerings. One’s mileage doubtless varies on this, but for me there are times during this, his crowning achievement, where the berg gets in the way of telling the most respectful version of this story by simple dint of being the berg. But then, to a great or lesser extent, this is true of almost all, if not all, his prestige pictures.

And my father was a real ugly man.

Marty (1955)
(SPOILERS) It might be the very unexceptional good-naturedness of Marty that explains its Best Picture Oscar success. Ernest Borgnine’s Best Actor win is perhaps more immediately understandable, a badge of recognition for versatility, having previously attracted attention for playing iron-wrought bastards. But Marty also took the Palme d’Or, and it’s curious that its artistically-inclined jury fell so heavily for its charms (it was the first American picture to win the award; Lost Weekend won the Grand Prix when that was still the top award).

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…

The world is one big hospice with fresh air.

Doctor Sleep (2019)
(SPOILERS) Doctor Sleep is a much better movie than it probably ought to be. Which is to say, it’s an adaption of a 2013 novel that, by most accounts, was a bit of a dud. That novel was a sequel to The Shining, one of Stephen King’s most beloved works, made into a film that diverged heavily, and in King’s view detrimentally, from the source material. Accordingly, Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep also operates as a follow up to the legendary Kubrick film. In which regard, it doesn’t even come close. And yet, judged as its own thing, which can at times be difficult due to the overt referencing, it’s an affecting and often effective tale of personal redemption and facing the – in this case literal – ghosts of one’s past.

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…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder (1990)
(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.