Ten years ago, if you’d asked anyone to sum up the constituent parts of a movie, their answer might have gone something like this. Grant with a knack for transforming even the most straightforward piece of dialogue into a bumbling collage of “erm”s and “aah”s. He exclaims “bugger!” a lot, often while bumping into various beautiful women.
The floppiness of his fringe is inversely proportional to his level of caddishness (if his hair’s longer, he’s nice; if it’s shorter, run). And if isn’t in the director’s seat, then his name is quite probably lurking somewhere in the credits. For a very long time, thanks to films such as and , Grant was synonymous with a particular sub-genre of romantic hero: one who lived in a nice part of west London and was good at swearing Britishly.
Now, though, that has all changed. By his own admission, the 64-year-old is in the “freak show period” of his career. The man who was one of the most pigeonholed actors of the Nineties and Noughties has carved out a new niche, gleefully leaning into playing characters that are “twisted, ugly, weird [and] misshapen” (again, his words).
Hugh 2.0 has earned some of the best reviews of his career so far. But as celebrated as this second act has been, it does make you wonder: has Grant simply swapped one form of typecasting for another, replacing the romcom stammerer with the unhinged oddball? Is he about to get trapped in another, stranger box? .
It’s an unsettling slow-burn horr.
