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.

Popular posts from this blog

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Archimedes would split himself with envy.

Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger (1977) (SPOILERS) Generally, this seems to be the Ray Harryhausen Sinbad outing that gets the short straw in the appreciation stakes. Which is rather unfair. True, Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger lacks Tom Baker and his rich brown voice personifying evil incarnate – although Margaret Whiting more than holds her own in the wickedness stakes – and the structure follows the Harryhausen template perhaps over scrupulously (Beverly Cross previously collaborated with the stop-motion auteur on Jason and the Argonauts , and would again subsequently with Clash of the Titans ). But the storytelling is swift and sprightly, and the animation itself scores, achieving a degree of interaction frequently more proficient than its more lavishly praised peer group.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.