Skip to main content

What's Important is that Rowan Atkinson is in Cinemas Again


Johnny English Strikes Again is a movie literally nobody asked for, yet I’m still glad it’s here, if only because it allows Rowan Atkinson to headline a feature again. Rowan Atkinson is one of the worlds’ greatest masters of both physical comedy and sharp wit, demonstrated respectively through his two most iconic characters, Mr. Bean and Edmund Blackadder. I’ll also admit that he’s one of my personal comedy heroes, Blackadder in particular having had a crucial impact on my life.
Johnny English on the other hand is a spy parody series that’s been a mixed bag overall. Taking a leaf out of Space Jam’s book, it was originally a series of Barclaycard ads Atkinson starred in during the ‘90s before being expanded into films. 2003’s Johnny English was awkwardly written and frequently predictable, very much a comedy of its time, but with enough laughs to make it a mildly entertaining send-up of Pierce Brosnan-era Bond flicks. Its’ sequel, Johnny English Reborn, came eight years later and was more sophisticated, more focussed in its plot as it targeted modern Bond and Bourne movies, and was actually pretty good but for one bad running joke. Another seven years later, we have Johnny English Strikes Again, Atkinson now firmly in his late Roger Moore phase as he makes a valiant attempt with heavily outdated material.
A massive cyber-attack exposes all of Britain’s active secret agents, and so the fictional MI7 is forced to recall Johnny English out of the retirement he’s been spending teaching geography students espionage. Answering to the Prime Minister (Emma Thompson), he and his old assistant Bough (Ben Miller) investigate in the south of France; where they come across another spy (Olga Kurylenko), while the Prime Minister cozies up to a Silicon Valley billionaire (Jake Lacy) for his assistance in this crisis.
Each of these movies has had a different director, from Sliding Doors’ Peter Howitt to St. Trinians’ Oliver Parker, and now That Mitchell and Webb Look’s David Kerr, making his feature debut. And each movie has had a different style to it, generally based on the environment of spy movies it came out in. But since there hasn’t been much a shift in the genre since 2011 and the team behind this movie wasn’t creative enough, Johnny English Strikes Again doesn’t really know what it wants to be. And so it haphazardly applies modern technological story devices, such as the prevalence of the internet, hacking, and smartphones, to a rudimentary conflict. The plot of this movie is really dumb, and this is coming from a series that featured an evil French John Malkovich trying to be crowned King of England. It’s so uninspired, unambitious, and would have been outdated fifteen years ago. The movie also seems to have a mild anti-technological stance, represented through English’s cynicism and rejection of modern technology, despite having a love for new gadgets in previous instalments -though in fairness, there’s no real continuity to these films.
It’s also interesting how each of these movies has written the title character differently. He went from a self-centred, bumbling, and in some cases just unlucky agent out of his depth, to actually being a capable, though naive and gullible spy. In this film he’s mostly back to being inept, but with added idiosyncrasies and stupidity. I imagine this was done to inject some more familiar Mr. Bean-style humour into the character. It’s a testament to Atkinsons’ talent that he can make some of this work where a lesser comedian wouldn’t have a chance. And indeed there are a few really good physical sequences to this movie, most notably one where English gets carried away with a VR simulator. But the arrested development of his character and repetitiveness of some of the jokes does do Atkinson a disservice, and even the direction on other physical comedy bits can be really strange and unfunny. Just like the plot, a lot of the jokes are stale.
Olga Kurylenko is really wasted in the flat role of English’s love interest, again another spy, and there’s very little chemistry between them. Comedian Ben Miller returns as Bough, once more proving a very good foil to English and the much better spy. His role is actually much larger than in the first film, to the point he has almost as much screen-time as the title character. Adam James is mostly forgettable as the new Pegasus (the head of MI7), especially following in the footsteps of Gillian Anderson; but Jake Lacy is a good fit for the thin, obnoxious bro of a villain -though it doesn’t make the character any less insufferable. And add Emma Thompson to the list of actors way too good for a movie like this as she plays a blatant, unflattering, often unfunny Theresa May caricature. She’s a two-time Oscar winner for god’s sake and she’s previously starred alongside Atkinson in The Tall Guy and Love, Actually -how did she get roped into this?
This movie really could have been better and a lot funnier if it had satirized the age of spies like English and Bough trying to play by the old school rules in the modern world of espionage. But unfortunately the movie’s not aware of how irrelevant it is. It might have worked okay had it come out around the time the first movie did, but not in 2018. Instead it feels tired, and though dotted with great comedy moments thanks to Atkinsons’ comedic skills, it’s not terribly enjoyable (and it doesn’t help that the poster looks uncomfortably similar to Spy Hard). But if nothing else, it does make me appreciate the second films’ strengths all the more, and even some of the silly charm of the first.
Rowan Atkinson deserves to be in more movies. Hell, with his stage-work and the recent detective series Maigret, he’s been really testing his dramatic capabilities and I’d love to see them reach a wider audience. But let’s put Johnny English to rest.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...