Kick-Ass 2 (2013)

2013 #107
Jeff Wadlow | 103 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK & USA / English | 15 / R

Kick-Ass 2When the first Kick-Ass was released back in 2010, one of the main stories was that it had flopped at the box office. That was poppycock: it opened at #1 in the US, and because it was made for just $30m it more than broke even in the US alone, eventually earning a total of $96m worldwide. It was an even bigger hit on DVD and Blu-ray, with an uncommonly large percentage of home entertainment sales being on BD, helping it earn even more cash.

Come the release of Kick-Ass 2 in September 2013 and the first film was suddenly referred to as a renowned box office hit. I guess the media have very short memories. And it made a good stick to beat the sequel with, when it opened at #5 in the US with just $13m. What a flop! Except it only cost $28m, has gone on to make just over that in the US, and has climbed to a total of $59.6m worldwide. Not close to as big as the first film, but even before the inevitably-successful DVD & Blu-ray numbers that’s a strong performance.

Will we see a third film? That certainly looks plausible. Should we? Well…

Written and directed by Jeff Wadlow, based on two comic book miniseries (Hit-Girl and Kick-Ass 2) by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr., the movie of Kick-Ass 2 rejoins the characters a couple of years on. A wave of Kick-Ass-inspired costumed heroes now patrol the streets, though Kick-Ass himself, Dave Lizewski (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), has more or less retired. Mindy Macready (Chloë Grace Moretz) still fights crime as Hit-Girl, HG, KA, MFhiding that fact from her disapproving guardian (Morris Chestnut). Meanwhile, Chris D’Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) wants revenge on Kick-Ass for murdering his father, but is being kept out of the way by his mother and the remains of his father’s mob organisation… until she dies in a freak accident, when Chris dubs himself “the Motherfucker” and sets about forming a gang of supervillains…

If that sounds like a convoluted setup, that’s kind of how it plays on screen too — and it’s only the start of it. This is a somewhat muddled second instalment, taking time to re-introduce us to various characters and follow all their stories. Whereas the first film introduced elements gradually as they came into contact with the central narrative of a schoolboy-turned-superhero, Kick-Ass 2 picks up each character when they’ve more or less gone their separate ways, then sets about bringing them together again. So rather than one straightforward thread that others naturally emerge alongside, here Wadlow must juggle three disparate tales from the start, before he eventually ties them together.

It feels a little meandering, then, as Kick-Ass joins up with a superhero team trying to do good, the Motherfucker gradually assembles his own team of villains, and Mindy tries to fit in as a regular high school girl. You can see the germs of good ideas here, but how well they function is debatable. Whereas the first film riffed on archetypal characters and plots from regular superhero movies, as such providing an entertaining deconstruction of the genre, Regular high school ass-kickerthe sequel doesn’t feel as focussed. The themes are somewhat familiar — superheroes leading to supervillains, as seen in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy, or the assembly of superhero teams, as seen in The Avengers — but it seems these are coincidental similarities, not conscious points of reference, comparison, juxtaposition, or examination.

Wadlow is an inadequate replacement for the first film’s director/co-writer Matthew Vaughn. In fairness he’s working to an even tighter budget (in the deleted scenes, he reveals a whole 30-second action beat in the Hit Girl/Mother Russia fight was cut purely because they couldn’t afford a small patch of green screen replacement in one shot), but that’s not the real problem. There just aren’t as many gags, the action sequences aren’t as viscerally satisfying, the story meanders a bit in the middle rather than barrelling through like the first. In part this is the widely-identified fact that Moretz is now a teenager behaving like a teenager rather than the shocking/amusing pre-teen swearing like a sailor of the first movie, but it’s a more endemic problem than that. Whether it stems from Millar’s original comic or Wadlow’s treatment of it, I don’t know, but on the whole it feels less inventive, less vital, and consequently less exciting (though there are some good sequences) and less funny (though there are some proper laughs).

Bad assWadlow does make welcome changes to Millar’s notoriously nihilistic comic, however: instead of gang-raping Kick-Ass’ girlfriend, the Motherfucker can’t get it up (I guess because Kick-Ass isn’t dating his mother (ho ho!)); instead of murdering Colonel Stars & Stripes’ dog, he remarks that “I’m not that evil!”; and so on. The film version still has its points of offensiveness and some outré ideas, certainly, but the needlessly-harsh edge has been taken off, especially when it comes to punishing characters who are innocent. With the exception of Kick-Ass’ dad, but then that’s a superhero staple… just one that’s more violently executed here than normal.

The quality cast keep the film watchable at all times, and the tight budget doesn’t always stand in the way — some of the green screen work may be shockingly cheap, as seen in the van sequence ever since the trailer, but the action choreography of such sequences is still good — meaning that Kick-Ass 2 remains entertaining for fans of the first outing. But it isn’t as strong a production all round, and doesn’t exceed the original in any regard — indeed, any emotional investment in the characters (and there is some) is carried over from the first film’s groundwork — meaning that those fans may be entertained, but will also be a bit disappointed.

FriendsSo is Kick-Ass 3 a good idea? Kick-Ass 2 does provide a kind of conclusion to the story… but it also leaves it wide open for more, not to mention that Millar & Romita’s third comic book miniseries (currently running) is supposed to be the definitive final act for the characters. It would be a shame not to see that completed on screen, but perhaps with more care in how it’s executed.

3 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

Arthur Christmas (2011)

2013 #105
Sarah Smith* | 93 mins | streaming | 16:9 | UK & USA / English | U / PG

Arthur ChristmasAardman’s second CG feature attracts a starry cast (not just the leads — check out who’s credited as “Lead Elf”!) to the story of how Santa really delivers all those presents in one night: a giant spaceship-like craft and thousands of SAS-esque elves. But when one child is missed, Santa’s clumsy son Arthur resolves to fix it.

So commences a breathless global knockabout — it rattles along so fast, an hour in you’ll think it must be nearly over. Aside from a few longueurs that give you pause to think such thoughts, it’s an entertaining ride, perfect for the family at Christmas.

4 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

* Most websites list both Smith and Barry Cook as director. However, at the very start of the closing credits it prominently states just, “Directed by Sarah Smith”. IMDb specifies that Cook was “co-director”, and having watched the credits especially for a second time, I found him: he has the 28th credit. While I’m sure his contribution was vital, I’ve stuck with just crediting the person credited. ^

A Field in England (2013)

2013 #59
Ben Wheatley | 90 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | UK / English | 15

A Field in EnglandMuch was written about A Field in England at the time of its release, so if you frequent the right places online or in the press you can’t’ve missed it. Nonetheless, there’s a good chance you’ll have heard of it more for its release format(s) than for anything in the film itself: the fourth feature in just five years from new British critical darling Ben Wheatley, it was released to cinemas, DVD, Blu-ray, download, video-on-demand, and shown on free TV all on the same day, a first for British cinema. Any casual viewers who checked it out for that reason were in for a shock, because this certainly isn’t an easily-digested mainstream experience.

During a battle in the English Civil War, a group of men find themselves in a deserted field. One of their number lures them on with the promise of a pub, but instead leads them into a psychotropic nightmarish hunt for some artefact of magical power, or something. I mean, that’s kinda the plot, but I’m not sure how much “the plot” matters. There is a story, clearly; and it’s a little opaque, clearly; but the mood is more the point, I think. This is a horror movie (if you will) that doesn’t set out to make you jump or look over your shoulder or show you squirting blood, but instead seeks to unsettle you, to put you at unease, to subtly chill you.

Ye olde gunfightThat very subtlety leads some viewers to write this kind of movie off — and fair enough, because if you’re searching for any kind of mass acceptance you don’t do it with a black-and-white film about a few blokes in period dress running around a field doing weird, inexplicable things. Though you might top it off with a shoot-out that is arguably one of the year’s best action sequences, something Wheatley and co do do. And without making it feel tonally out of place, either. Impressive. In keeping but even more memorable is the moment you’ve surely heard about — “when he comes out of the tent with that look on his face”. I wasn’t able to watch the film until something like 24 hours after its Big Premiere, by which time I’d already heard everyone talk about that, and yet it was still uncomfortably uncanny. Kudos, Reece Shearsmith, you’re an odd’un.

Part of the unusual release strategy was an online (and on-disc, with the BD at least) “masterclass” about the making of the film. At the time, I commented on Twitter that the “much-touted… masterclass strikes me as standard making-of. Not uninteresting, but something on what it’s ABOUT would be nice,” and received a reply from the film’s cinematographer, Laurie Rose (who has done excellent, striking work here, incidentally), to suggest that “maybe that’s what YOU bring to it?” Well, OK… up to a point. I mean, surely the makers intended some reading, and perhaps the director’s commentary would have been the place to share it? Maybe I was just looking for easy answers when I shouldn’t have been, but it’s a tricky film to read.

The way forward?In terms of the new funding models and simultaneous multi-format release and all that… well, it depends what their goals were. If it was to make interesting, alternative, minority-interest films… fantastic, they’ve done it — and got a remarkable amount of interest in the process. If it was meant to be a way of turning a profit, or of reaching a bigger audience… well, it succeeded this time — but how many of those viewers are going to come back? A Field in England is definitely the kind of film that appeals to some people, but it is defiantly not “mainstream cinema”. No bad thing, and something that should be encouraged, supported and funded in some way; but however you do it, it’s not going to continuously bring in big bucks.

Not an easy film, then, and at times uncomfortable to watch for all the wrong reasons (when you have no idea what’s meant to be going on, it does go on a bit). But it’s a memorable one, for more reasons than its experimental release strategy.

3 out of 5

A Field in England is on Channel 4 tonight at 12:20am.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

2013 #100
David Lean | 227 mins | Blu-ray | 2.20:1 | UK & USA / English | PG / PG

In tribute to the great Peter O’Toole, who passed away on Saturday, today’s review is his defining role, and this year’s very special #100…

Lawrence of ArabiaIf you were looking for the archetype of an epic movie, Lawrence of Arabia would be a strong contender. It has a wide scope in just about every regard, from the desert locations that stretch as far as the eye can see, to the thousands of extras that fill them, to the glorious 70mm camerawork that captures it all, to the sweeping story that also contains a more personal throughline, to the 3½-hour running time.

The film begins at the end, with Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) dying in a motorcycle crash. At his funeral, various people express how they never really knew him. From there, it’s back to the height of the First World War, where Lawrence is performing menial duties for the British Army in Cairo before (in a series of events too incidental to go into here) he’s sent off to Arabia to assess the military prospects of Prince Faisal (Alec Guinness). Instead of merely reporting back, however, Lawrence leads some of Faisal’s men on an impossible mission… and succeeds. Supposed to be the British Army’s liaison with the Arab forces, he more ‘goes native’, leading the Arab troops in successful attacks on the enemy Turks, before considering turning on the British for Arabia’s independence…

And that’s much of the film summarised. But it’s almost besides the point, because it’s in the telling and details that Lawrence of Arabia thrives. For instance, as a war epic you might expect numerous battle scenes, and you get some of those; but the 140-minute first half deals with Lawrence’s journey to meet Faisal and then his first victory, while the second part begins later, after Lawrence has won many significant victories. Director David Lean is concerned more with this unknowable man, how he rose and how he fell, than with the ins and outs of all his triumphs.

O'Toole of ArabiaAs such, the film hangs on the performance of O’Toole. We’re told Lawrence is an enigmatic figure and his depiction arguably supports that — we never fully get inside his head; we’re always observing him. And yet that’s no bad thing, because even as Lawrence’s confidence waxes and wains, as his allegiances shift and alter, we can feel what he wants to achieve, why he thinks he can. He attempts the impossible and succeeds, which is why he later attempts a bigger impossibility, and must leave the pieces to the more level-headed men, who didn’t have his genius but can therefore play the political game better than he.

O’Toole carries us through all this with the skill of a seasoned pro, and yet this was his first major role. No wonder it made him a star over night. He makes every tweak in Lawrence’s attitude plausible; sells both the supreme self-confidence and crushing tumbles to inadequacy. Whatever else is going on, he draws your attention — not harmed by his piercing blue eyes, and looks so beautiful that Noel Coward remarked if he were any prettier they’d have to call it Florence of Arabia.

His command of the screen is even more impressive considering who’s playing opposite him. With hindsight it may be a mistake to have Alec Guinness blacked up as an Arabian prince, but his is not a caricature or cartoon villain. Indeed, Faisal is one of the most respectable men in the film, far more so than any of Lawrence’s British superiors. I said before that no man here outclassed Lawrence’s genius, but that would really be wrong: while he might not share Lawrence’s outward brilliance, Faisal is intelligent enough to hold back, to recognise that Lawrence will do much of what needs to be done, but that someone with a calmer head will need to be there to sweep up afterwards.

Entrance of Arabia

Then there’s Omar Sharif. Famed for having one of the greatest introductions in the history of the cinema — and one of the longest — there’s much more to his character than that sequence. At first Lawrence’s apparent enemy, he becomes perhaps the closest thing he has to a friend, before it disintegrates again. Such is the volatile nature of Lawrence’s relationship with most of the characters. A psychiatrist could probably diagnose him with some kind of mental health issue.

While those three may dominate, a film of this size has room for many more characters, and — at the risk of just sounding like a cast list — actors such as Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, José Ferrer, Anthony Quayle, Claude Rains and Arthur Kennedy all make a mark, to one degree or another.

Filmmaking of ArabiaA similar legacy is left by those behind the scenes. Maurice Jarre’s score is the reference point for many a period desert epic — indeed, his music is so synonymous with such settings that it has arguably transcended its source to simply be what music for those locations and times is. It graces a film edited with class by Anne V. Coates, where scenes are allowed to play in luxuriantly long takes at times, while at others smash edits throw us from one location to another. This is undoubtedly supported by F.A. Young’s cinematography, where the wide frame can encompass so much action that there’s no need to cut amongst close-ups; and which can show the world in such majesty that you want it to hold for long, lingering takes. Even viewed on the small screen, the 70mm photography shines, especially on Blu-ray.

And, of course, overseeing all that, and surely as attributable for praise as any of those individuals already mentioned, is director David Lean. His ability to marshal a project of his size is unparalleled. To play it out across such a length without it feeling self-indulgent or overplayed is another skill, in part dictated by the material, but no less by the way that material is portrayed. I think, in the face of all this praise, there’s an argument that the film’s size has sometimes run away with. I couldn’t begin to tell you where a cut should be made or an element changed, and I’m not sure I’d presume to even if I had an idea (it was already sliced up once, then restored in 1989). Perhaps it doesn’t actually need changing at all — but on a first viewing, oh my, there’s an awful lot to it!

Legend of ArabiaAs with any great film, Lawrence of Arabia is at least the sum of its parts. Replace any of the artists I’ve mentioned, or surely many more, and it would not be the film it is. In fact, when working on such a scale, this is more than a film — it’s an experience. And if that sounds pretentious, well, tough. If you haven’t experienced it yet, try not to leave it as long as I did.

5 out of 5

Lawrence of Arabia was viewed as part of my What Do You Mean You Haven’t Seen…? 12 for 2013 project, which you can read more about here.

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

Hanna (2011)

2013 #106
Joe Wright | 111 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | USA, UK & Germany / English | 12 / PG-13

The UK TV premiere of Hanna is on Channel 4 tonight at 10pm. I’m posting this drabble review now to encourage you to watch it, and intend to post something more thorough at a later date, because it’s worth it.

HannaMost action-thrillers are cast from the same mould; it’s the decoration which dictates whether the final product is a Steven Segal or a Jason Bourne.

Hanna is an original, though. There’s the genre’s typical globetrotting, fistfighting thrills; but also an allegorical coming-of-age indie drama; plus a surreal, fairytale tone that drifts across proceedings like a pleasant morning mist.

The director of Atonement may seem an odd fit, but he brings his trademark long takes to several stunning action sequences, bolstered by the Chemical Brothers’ pulsatingly memorable score.

Hanna will not please everyone, but some will love it — as I did.

5 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

Hanna placed 5th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2013, which can be read in full here.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)

2013 #62
Michael Apted | 108 mins | TV (HD) | 2.35:1 | USA / English | PG / PG

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn TreaderI’ve never actually read the Narnia novels, but I did have them read to me when I was very young and, for some reason, I remember Voyage of the Dawn Treader being my favourite. Sadly, this doesn’t quite translate to the big screen.

We’re re-introduced to the younger two Pevensie siblings, still during World War 2, staying with their irritating cousin Eustace. They are of course sucked into Narnia, this time much closer to their last visit: Prince— sorry, King Caspian is searching for some missing chaps, giving a nice excuse for a quest narrative across the seven seas. Or however many seas there are in Narnia.

What that means, unfortunately, is two things that often cause films trouble: an episodic narrative, and a surfeit of different locations and creatures. There’s no shortage of ambition in their rendering on screen, but the film sadly comes up short on occasion. Despite director Michael Apted’s experienced hand on the wheel, the course strays into Syfy Channel TV movie territory at times, with a kind of cheapness that won’t please anyone (though, of course, some simply won’t notice). Elsewhere, sequences that were surely fine in a children’s novel sit awkwardly amidst the grander, Lord of the Rings-y tone these adaptations strive for. By contrast, the epic finale is actually quite scary, surely stretching the bounds of the modern PG certificate… or possibly just demonstrating why more 12As could stand to be rated PG.

Then there’s the ending, which is all a problem sourced from the novel. While The Golden Compass was forced to downplay its atheism in an attempt to garner lucrative box office from grimly non-secular countries, like the United States (which ultimately did it no favours because the news that it was Ungodly and Evil had already got out), Dawn Treader offers no such courtesy with C.S. Lewis’ blatant Christ analogy version of Aslan. I never noticed this when I was little, The Dawn Treaderbut as a grown adult it is painful. The level of subtlety here is so low a participant in TOWIE or one of those other dreadful shows would surely be able to grasp that the film is screaming, “here’s Jesus, and that place behind the water is Heaven, and you should all aspire to this!” And it goes on, and on, and begins to feel like nasty propaganda, especially in a family movie.

I actually quite liked Dawn Treader while I was watching it, the distasteful final sequence aside. But looking back, I was kindly glossing over some of its flaws, even before the nasty taste you’re left with at the end. Nonetheless it hasn’t killed the franchise, with a fourth entry recently announced, at long last. I’ll catch that at some point, but, sadly, I’m in no hurry to revisit this one.

3 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

Black Death (2010)

2013 #13
Christopher Smith | 97 mins | TV (HD) | 2.35:1 | UK & Germany / English | 15 / R

Black DeathSean Bean and his ragtag band of knights investigate an unaffected village during Ye plague-adled Olden Days in this folk horror from the director of Creep, Severance and Triangle.

Though not entirely devoid of gore or jumps, this is more a creeping horror; a tale of the supernatural where an uncanny mood is more important than visceral thrills. I don’t think it’s too lofty to suggest comparison to The Wicker Man rather than an historical Saw.

Still not for the faint-hearted, Black Death is the kind of eerie experience that can weave a spell over viewers who aren’t genre aficionados.

4 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

LEGO Batman: The Movie – DC Super Heroes Unite (2013)

2013 #75
Jon Burton | 71 mins | download (HD) | 1.78:1 | USA & UK / English | PG

LEGO Batman The MovieWell. What can I say? Curiosity got the better of me.

It’s weird to think that a generation or two of kids have now grown up with there always being tie-in LEGO. Until about 15 years ago, the toy brick manufacturer did not do licences. For whatever reason that all changed with The Phantom Menace, when sets were released that tied in to both that film and the original trilogy. I doubt it surprised anyone when these were a huge success, and since then pretty much any action figure-friendly franchise has received the LEGO treatment: Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones, even The Lone Ranger and Prince of Persia!

It was such a success that they got kind of cocky and made a LEGO Star Wars video game. What the hell?! Except it turned out to be massively popular, thanks to its mix of irreverent but informed humour and clever gameplay mechanics that emphasised and utilised the LEGO-ness of the world. After multiple sequels and the concept again branching out to encompass more licenses, this same style made its way to animated TV specials and, ultimately, feature-length animations — of which I believe this is the first.

But it’s also a bit of a cheat. It’s an adaptation of the game LEGO Batman 2: DC Super Heroes — so much so that it takes the game’s cinematic cut scenes and fills in the blanks (i.e. the bits you’d actually be playing in the game) with new animation. This has, understandably, quite irritated those who’ve played the game — it’s just the thing they’ve already seen, only less interactive. For the rest of us, it’s not startlingly obvious where all the gameplay bits would be, but every once in a while a character outlines a set of mission goals right before an action sequence, which slightly gives the game away (ho ho). The side effect is that at times it feels a little like watching someone play a computer game, and that’s rarely fun.

Justice League-OThis wouldn’t matter so much if what was left was entertaining, but it’s a little weak. I’ve seen a couple of the LEGO Star Wars TV specials and found them to be quite fun, but LEGO Batman can’t reach their level. It’s not just that it’s almost four times as long as one of those, it’s that the humour it does contain doesn’t hit home in the same way. It’s often too juvenile, too “that’ll do”, too “I can tell this is supposed to be humorous but it’s just not funny”. I know I started by saying that I just watched this through curiosity, but partly it was that I’d found those Star Wars specials enjoyable enough and thought this would be more of the same with superheroes. It wants to be, but it isn’t.

The top thing that struck me, however, was this: imagine that, instead of Zack Snyder directing Henry Cavill and Ben Affleck in Batman vs. Superman in 2015, we’d instead been treated to Joel Schumacher directing George Clooney and Nicolas Cage in Batman and Superman in 1999. The result, I can’t help but suspect, would have been rather like LEGO Batman: The Movie. And yet, as a 70-minute kid-focused animated confection, it’s gone down a lot better than I suspect my imagined Schumacher opus would have.

I don’t really think it deserves to. In fact, I’d kinda rather see that Schumacher version.

2 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

Dredd (2012)

2013 #6
Pete Travis | 96 mins | Blu-ray | 2.40:1 | UK, USA, India & South Africa* / English | 18 / R

DreddDogged by comparisons to The Raid (which filmed after but released before), and enforced 3D that its 18+ audience didn’t go for, Dredd underwhelmed at the box office.

Huge shame. It’s the gritty take on 2000AD’s primary hero that aficionados have long desired, but also an exemplary sci-fi/action movie in its own right. With impressive gun battles, dry humour, and Karl Urban nailing the title character (yes, including the voice), it’s an hour-and-a-half of unencumbered testosterone entertainment.

Screenwriter/producer Alex Garland’s trilogy outline sounded unmissably good. We must hope home media sales are ultra-strong and the ongoing sequel campaign ultimately succeeds.

5 out of 5

This review is part of the 100 Films Advent Calendar 2013. Read more here.

Dredd placed 6th on my list of The Ten Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2013, which can be read in full here.

In the interests of completing my ever-growing backlog, I decided to post ‘drabble reviews’ of some films. For those unfamiliar with the concept, a drabble is a complete piece of writing exactly 100 words long.

* IMDb used to list the countries of production as UK, USA and India, while the end credits of the film itself refer to it being “A South Africa/United Kingdom co-production”. With that in mind, I found the BFI list all four. Seems only fair. (IMDb have since taken my suggestion and added South Africa.) ^

Make/Remake: The Daleks’ Invasions of Earth

Doctor Who: The Dalek Invasion of EarthDaleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.

Doctor Who:
The Dalek Invasion of Earth

and
Daleks’ Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.


Doctor Who: The Dalek Invasion of Earth
1964 | Richard Martin | 149 mins | DVD | 4:3 | UK / English | PG

Daleks’ Invasion Earth 2150 A.D.
1966 | Gordon Flemyng | 84 mins | Blu-ray | 2.35:1 | UK / English | U


Daleks! On Earth!In a week’s time, on the 23rd of November 2013, Doctor Who will celebrate its golden anniversary — 50 years to the day since the premiere broadcast of its first episode, An Unearthly Child. (As part of the celebrations, BBC Four are showing that initial four-parter at 10:30pm on Thursday 21st. I heartily recommend it.) The programme’s success was cemented several weeks later, however, with the appearance of the Daleks — a race of xenophobic mutants hidden in metal machines from the planet Skaro. A wave of Dalekmania followed, leading to a boom in merchandising and, naturally, a sequel serial for the TV series, one year later.

It also led to a film adaptation, which I discussed last week. When that was a box office success, a sequel was greenlit. As with the first film, rather than construct an original tale starring the Daleks, the filmmakers turned to the TV series and adapted the aforementioned TV sequel. The story is set hundreds of years in the future (perhaps 10 years after 2164 in the TV series; 2150 in the film), when the Daleks have somehow left their homeworld and their city (which previously they’d needed to survive) and found their way to Earth. But this isn’t a Hollywood-style alien invasion battle: the Daleks have already occupied the planet, and Britain in particular (of course). The Doctor and his friends stumble into this situation and resolve to stop the evil invaders.

There’s little doubting that The Dalek Invasion of Earth is a minor epic. Where The Daleks struggled a bit to fill its seven-episode order, in six instalments writer Terry Nation takes us from an occupied, bomb-blasted London, to an attack on the Dalek spaceship, to a mine in Bedfordshire that’s digging to the centre of the Earth. Although made on Doctor Who’s typically tiny budget, the TV serial shines. Models vs CGIThere are some fantastic sets, bolstered by peerless location filming of a deserted London (simply achieved by shooting very early in the morning), and the usual array of quality performances from the series’ regulars and guest cast. It’s only let down by the special effects. The Daleks are as great as ever, and a weird monster that turns up for a few minutes is passable (if you’re being kind), but shots of the Dalek saucer flying over London look like a pair of foil pie cases on some string in front of a photo. Even by the standards of the era it’s bad. The DVD release includes the option to watch the story with new (in 2003) CG effects in place of these sequences, and for once I’d actually recommend that.

The story once again trades on the Daleks’ clear Nazi undertones. Here they’ve occupied a bomb-blasted country where a small band of rebel fighters hold out against them, attempting small-scale attacks while trying to work out a bigger plan. It can only be deliberate that these parts — hidden workshops, missions in enemy uniform, even the fighter’s casual clothes — all trade on familiar imagery from World War 2 resistance movies. Here, at least, collaborators are men rendered brain-dead by Dalek machinery, controlled via radio waves directly into their heads, rather than those who have chosen to betray their people.

That said, this is not a cheery view of the world. We can see that right from the opening shot: a derelict stretch of urban river bank, overgrown and decrepit, and the caption “World’s End”. Don't try suicideA man stumbles towards the steps, he screams in agony, battling with the strange machinery on his head. And then he hurls himself into the river, where he floats face down — dead. Beginning a kids’ programme with suicide? You wouldn’t do that today! We later learn that he’s a Roboman, controlled by the Daleks, essentially dead already… but it’s a bit late by then. Later, we meet unscrupulous country folk: a black marketeer who won’t give over food to the enslaved mine workers without payment, and won’t escort Ian out of the camp without payment either; and two women, employed by the Daleks to mend the workers’ clothes, who betray Barbara to get more food. There are heroes here, certainly — men and women who fight the Daleks, and some who give their lives for the cause — but not everyone’s doing the honourable thing.

The film is a bit less bleak in its outlook for humanity. The black marketeer remains, more treacherous than ever: he actively betrays the Doctor to the Daleks, though is killed for his troubles; the two women are there, too; but there’s no suicidal Roboman, and indeed the climax suggests the Robomen are able to return to being human just by taking their helmets off. Robo-farceSo that’s nice for them. There’s also some significant additions of humour, like when Tom is pretending to be a Roboman to stow away on the Dalek saucer and ends up in a mime act as he attempts to mimic a group of the real thing while they have lunch. Bless Bernard Cribbins. There aren’t too many of these almost-farcical bits, but the few there are lighten the general tone.

Overall, however, Daleks’ Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. (aka Daleks – Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D., and many other such punctuation-based variations, thanks to inconsistent spelling on posters and trailers) is, much like the the previous film, a strikingly faithful adaptation… at first. The running time is again a clue: while the TV serial takes two-and-a-half hours on its story (albeit with some subtractions for six sets of titles and five recaps), the movie rattles through it in 84 minutes. That’s with a new bookend sequence designed to establish the new character of PC Tom Campbell (Bernard Cribbins), leaving the film 75 minutes in which to condense Nation’s epic. Nonetheless, it’s scene-for-scene faithful, just picking the pace up with key actions and lines of dialogue rather than the comparatively-luxurious speed of the original.

As it goes on, though, things begin to diverge quite rapidly. Significant characters have been cut for time, while legacy changes from the first film also alter the plot — Dalek vs vanno burgeoning romance for Susan, here a small girl rather than TV’s young woman. Both stories split our leads into three groups following the assault on the Dalek saucer, but while the film retains the outline of these subplots, it rearranges which characters take which route. It’s a slightly bizarre turn of events, to be honest, and doesn’t always pay off: whereas the TV series manages to plausibly pace the various characters’ journeys from London to Bedfordshire, in the film the Doctor and his chum walk there in the same time it takes the Dalek saucer to fly it. Either that saucer’s underpowered or they’re impressive hikers.

Even with all these changes, the general shape of the story remains the same; yet the film feels less epic than the TV serial. It’s not just the length, but the sense of time passing: on TV the Doctor and co seem to be stuck on Earth for several days, while in the film it’s practically an afternoon’s work. And though the movie’s special effects are better (immeasurably so, in fact, because the model work in the film is fantastic), and there’s some great stunts too, the bigger-budget big-screen outing lacks the TV version’s London location filming. This makes a startling difference to the relative effectiveness of the story. On TV, you really feel like the Daleks have conquered Earth; in the film, it feels a little like they’ve conquered some expansive studio sets and impressive matte paintings. The famous image(Incidentally, perhaps the most striking thing about the serial’s location sequences are that they don’t include the iconic shot of the Daleks rolling across Westminster Bridge. That bit is in there, but it was filmed from an entirely different angle; I guess the famous image was just a unit photograph.)

There are other bits that work less well on film. Dortmun’s sacrifice on TV makes sense, a bold character moment; in the film, he seems to do it for the hell of it. On TV, the Doctor commits himself to stopping the Daleks (in one of the series’ clunkiest bits of dialogue, to be honest), whereas in the film he just stumbles into things — which, funnily, is more like the Doctor of the time. Ian and Barbara have been replaced by the aforementioned PC Tom and the Doctor’s niece, Louise, because Dr. Who and the Daleks actors Roy Castle and Jennie Linden were unavailable. Not that it matters much — Bernard Cribbins is just as adept in the comedy role, and Jill Curzon’s Louise is just Barbara by any other name. Then there’s the music, which is often jauntily comedic rather than action-packed; and the ever-so-’60s main theme, as with the first film replacing the TV series’ iconic, groundbreaking, electronic howl with something altogether more forgettable. What the film most benefits from losing, however, is a couple of hilariously of-the-time lines from the Doctor — particularly one when he tells Susan she needs “a jolly good smacked bottom”!

That aside, perhaps the film’s biggest loss is in the age of Susan. Nothing against Roberta “One-Take” Tovey, who is fortunately much less irritating than your average child actor, Go forward in all your beliefsbut the TV serial has a real advantage in this department. The original companion, this was Susan’s final story — the first companion departure in the series’ history. It handles it marvellously: rather than the final-minutes cut-and-run so many companions suffer, Susan’s growing sense of departure is built throughout the story… and then it’s the Doctor who realises it’s time for her to go, not her, and he leaves her behind. The speech he gives is one of the finest in the series’ history, beautifully and poignantly delivered by William Hartnell, and with a nicely under-played reaction from Carole Ann Ford. Doctor Who has had countless companion exits now, but this one still takes some beating.

Each version of The Dalek Invasion of Earth does something better than the other, but on balance the TV series is the clear victor. That said, the film is probably more entertaining than its big-screen predecessor; but that’s just the story itself, I guess, which I think is a more effective use of the villains. You could argue it ties into the fairly-modern idea of the first encounter being an establisher and the sequel a bigger, bolder, deeper, more exciting, experience. Both versions are certainly that.

Despite the enduring popularity of the titular villains, Daleks’ Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. wasn’t as much of a box office success as its predecessor. Combined with an overrunning schedule that led to a higher budget, its profitability was clearly lower. Production company AARU had the option to make a third film (presumably to be based on the third Dalek story, 1965’s The Chase), but the money-men passed. Awesome.Most Doctor Who fans won’t lament that (especially as The Chase isn’t the most well-loved of Dalek adventures either), but, even though the TV series remains the superior product, I think the Dalek movies have their own merits and charm. I’m not suggesting we should be finding a way to write them into Doctor Who canon, but as an alternative to the norm, they’re a good bit of fun.


Tied in with Doctor Who’s 50th anniversary celebrations, Channel 5 are screening the Dalek movies next weekend. Dr. Who and the Daleks can be seen on the anniversary itself, Saturday 23rd November, at 10:05am. Daleks’ Invasion Earth 2150 A.D. is on Sunday 24th at 10am.

Cheery-bye!