"HOT FUZZ" (2007) Review

 

"HOT FUZZ" (2007) Review

I have never never seen "SHAUN OF THE DEAD". Nor have I ever seen "SPACED", the TV series that had first made British comics Simon Pegg and Nick Frost well known. And if I must be honest, I never really had any intention of seeing "HOT FUZZ" when it first hit the theaters back in 2007. Until I saw the trailers for the movie on television. Thank God I had changed my mind.

"HOT FUZZ" tells the story of New Scotland Yard police constable, Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg), whose uber-dedication to law and order, spotless arrest record (400% superior to his colleagues), and no-nonsense personality drives his superiors (which include Bill Nighy and Steve Coogan) to promote him to sergeant . . . and reassign him to the supposedly crime-free village of Sanford. Feeling like a fish out of water, Sergeant Angel struggles to adjust to rural crime fighting (like arresting under-aged drinkers and a drunken future partner; and searching for a missing pet swan) and the slightly offbeat citizens of Sanford - especially his new partner, the affable Constable Danny Butterman (Nick Frost). What starts out as a mind-numbing experience for Angel, becomes intriguing when Sanford is rocked (well, as far as the intrepid police sergeant is concerned) by a series of grisly accidents. Angel eventually uncover the truth behind the so-called accidents. With the help of the eager Butterman (who happens to be an action movie fan) and the seemingly inept Sanford Police, Angel brings the . . . uh, guilty party to justice in a blaze of action-style gunplay.

Not only is "HOT FUZZ" one of the funniest movies I have seen in years, the screenwriters (director Edgar Wright and star Pegg) had created an array of eccentric and memorable characters that include Oscar winner Jim Broadbent (who plays Danny's equally affable chief of police dad, Frank Butterman), Billie Whitelaw ("THE OMEN" fame) and BAFTA nominee Anne Reid ("THE MOTHER"). Also portraying some of the villagers are a collection of British talent from famous action-adventure sagas - Timothy Dalton (the 4th James Bond), Edward Woodward ("THE EQUALIZER"), Paul Freeman ("RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK"), David Threlfall ("PATRIOT GAMES") and Stuart Wilson ("LETHAL WEAPON 3"). Even Pegg has appeared as an IMF computer tech and agent in the last two "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE" movies. And they are all hilarious . . . especially Dalton's smarmy supermarket owner, who reminds me of a stock villain straight out of "THE PERILS OF PAULINE".

I must admit that I truly enjoyed watching Nick Frost's Danny get under Angel's skin. Not only was he extremely funny - and witty, but he was also so charming that it was easy how he managed to break down Angel's chilly exterior and befriend the London cop. And his penchant for American action films has endeared me to his character more than ever. I suffer from the same penchant.

But the real revelation - at least for me - turned out to be Sergeant Nicholas Angel, portrayed with such humorless zeal by star, Simon Pegg. Straight arrow types usually turn out to be the hero or anti-hero's long-suffering superior or rival in many action films. And it is usually the screw-up or anti-social characters who turn out to be the main character that end up being transferred away from the action. But in "HOT FUZZ", Angel's zealous competence causes him to lose his girlfriend (Cate Blanchett in a cameo), but earn the antipathy of his Scotland Yard colleagues (who are eager to get rid of him). I cannot explain it, but is something about Angel that I found very appealing and funny. I guess I simply found him fascinating. In real life, this guy would have seriously annoyed me. But thanks to great writing and Pegg's tight performance, I found myself rooting for him. The ironic thing about Nick Angel is that he will eventually discover that his nemesis is just as anal as he. Danny Butterman turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to him.

Some critics had complained that "HOT FUZZ" seemed to long for a comedy with a running time of 121 minutes. Considering that the movie was a send-up of action movies, which usually ran at two hours, I saw nothing wrong with the movie's length. To be honest, I was too busy laughing to notice. I have to say that without a doubt, "HOT FUZZ" is one of the funniest movies I have seen since . . . one of Danny Butterman's favorite movies, "BAD BOYS 2" and "STARSKY AND HUTCH" (both released in 2003). It has become increasingly difficult to find a comedy that is smart and filled with rich characterization. "HOT FUZZ" can also boast some memorable scenes that I will never forget:

-Sergeant Angel's New Scotland Yard superiors giving him the news about his reassignment
-Angel's first night in Sanford (which includes arresting his future partner)
-David Threlfall and Lucy Punch's hilarious take on "ROMEO AND JULIET"
-Police Constable Doris Thatcher's witty repartee after dealing with one of Simon Skinner's employees
-Danny Butterman's send up on a scene from "POINT BREAK"
-Angel and Skinner's crazy hand-to-hand fight in the middle of a small-scale model of Sanford.

"HOT FUZZ" became one of my favorite movies from 2007. It is a hilariously rich and sharp tale about murder, conspiracy and a great friendship. Thank you Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Edgar Wright for a wonderful film.

"HOT FUZZ" (2007) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 2007 comedy hit, "HOT FUZZ". Directed by Edgar Wright, the movie starred Simon Pegg and Nick Frost:




"HOT FUZZ" (2007) Photo Gallery

“GAME OF THRONES”: Revenge Is Not Female Empowerment

The following article contains massive spoilers for HBO’s “GAME OF THRONES”.  If you have not seen the entire series, I suggest you refrain from reading this article:

 

 

"GAME OF THRONES":  REVENGE IS NOT FEMALE EMPOWERMENT

 David Benioff and D.B. Weiss’ attitude that seeking revenge is some form of empowerment for women really makes me wonder about them.  Or perhaps they were only willing to utilize this questionable theory in regard to the Stark family in “GAME OF THRONES”.

In the Season Eight episode, (8.05) “The Bells”, the two show runners had Sandor Clegane aka the Hound try to stop Arya Stark from going after Queen Cersei Lannister.  He did this when he saw the Red Keep in flames and to prevent Arya from indulging in her desire for revenge against the Lannister queen.  I found this laughable.

Did Benioff and Weiss really try to convince television audiences that Arya seeking revenge against Cersei would have been a step too far for her by Season Eight?  I find this laughable, when I remember that back in the Season Six episode, (6.10) “The Winds of Winter”, Arya had already inflicted revenge against Walder Frey and two of his sons in one of the most gruesome ways possible when she chopped up two of Walder’s sons, baked them into a pie, and served them to the aging landowner before killing him with a knife to the throat.  Initially, I found this rewarding, considering how Walder had arranged the deaths of Catelyn and Robb Stark.  But when I re-watched Walder’s death again, I found it brutal, sick and very disturbing.  Then in the Season Seven episode, (7.01) “Dragonstone”, Arya topped her acts of vengeance when she poisoned more members of the Frey family.  What made this worse is that the series’ two show runners and especially the media had labeled Arya as a “badass” after her killings.

I eventually came to the conclusion that Benioff and Weiss were trying to portray Arya as this innocent, yet traumatized young girl who was on the verge of being driven to her worst impulses by Season Eight.  This is laughable to me because I feel that Arya had already passed the “point of no return” when she killed the Freys  The two show runners ended the series with Arya leaving Westeros to explore unknown lands in the west.  What was the message here?  She had finally given up her murderous desires and impulses to do something more laudable?  Seriously?  

In series finale, Yara Greyjoy had demanded that the new Small Council allow Jon Snow aka Aegon Targaryen to legally suffer the consequences for his murder of Daenerys Targaryen.  I suspect that Yara’s demand was tainted with a touch of vengeance, since Daenerys had previously promised the independence of the Iron Islands for her assistance.  But Yara had never considered exacting revenge with her own hands.  She wanted Jon to pay the price . . . legally.  Being banished to Wall did not suffice in her eyes.  It certainly did not in mine.  And what did Arya do after Yara had expressed her demand?  Threaten the Ironborn leader’s life.  Apparently, the Hound’s lesson had fallen on deaf ears.  I suspect that no journey will ever wipe away Arya's murderous tendencies or her past crimes.  That little exchange with Yara only told me that she had not learned a damn thing.  Not by the end of the series.  Why did Benioff and Weiss had tried to push this message that she had?  Because she is a Stark?

Honestly, I believe that is the correct answer.  Arya was a Stark. Her past crimes were whitewashed by the show runners.  Benioff and Weiss wanted to give Arya a pass, just as they had given the other members of her family a pass because they had suffered a great deal of loss during the recent wars.  They were not the only characters that suffered, but as far as Benioff and Weiss (and I suspect, Martin) were concerned, the Starks was the only family that really mattered. 

Arya was not the only member of the family given a pass, moral or otherwise by the writers.  Instead of facing the consequences of his murder of Daenerys Targaryen, Jon Snow (who is a Stark on his mother’s side) was banished to the Wall by Westeros’ Small Council, a political group that no longer had the authority to do so.  Instead of remaining with the now useless Night Watchers, Jon went further north and happily joined the Freefolk, where he would not have to be executed or imprisoned for murder, or live with the reputation of being a “queenslayer”, as Jaime Lannister had live with the “kingslayer” monniker for such a long time.  The Small Council also allowed Sansa Stark to declare the North independent of Westeros and herself as the new Queen of the North.  Neither the Small Council, led by Sansa’s first husband, Tyrion Lannister and her brother King Brandon, the new monarch of Weseros, bothered to prevent or argue against this.

Then again, I should not have been surprised, considering how Benioff and Weiss had ended Sansa Stark’s own story arc.  They also painted Sansa’s revenge against her second husband, Ramsay “Snow” Bolton for rape as “female empowerment”.  In other words, the show runners gave Sansa's gruesome murder of Ramsay a moral pass.  She was a heroine (a Stark heroine at that) who had suffered a lot and he was a villain.  Yet, the manner in which he was killed reeked of murder, cruelty, and revenge.  Ramsay and his father Roose had allowed the Northern realm to suffer a great deal when Roose became Warden of the North, following his murder of Robb Stark back in late Season Three.  Sansa and Jon could have easily had Ramsay executed for treason, following his defeat at the Battle of the Bastards.  Instead, Sansa, in a fit of vengeance and cruelty, lowered herself to her husband's level and allowed him to be eaten alive by his dogs.  

Some fans of George R.R. Martin have pointed out that facing the consequences of one’s actions was the theme of his literary saga.  Yet, I have noticed that after Season Five, Benioff and Weiss were only willing to allow any characters who were not members of the Stark family to face the consequences of their actions . . . Daenerys Targaryen being the last example.  But the show runners had allowed good fortune to shower upon the remaining members of the Stark family without them paying any real consequences for their actions.  I find this attitude of Benioff and Weiss very hypocritical.  And I especially took umbrage at the idea that Arya and Sansa Stark enacting revenge upon those who had wronged them or their family via violent murder should be regarded as “female empowerment”.  I find this concept to be disgusting, hypocritical and very offensive.