Skip to main content

You don't see us, now you do, but only if we want you to.


The Spiderwick Chronicles
(2008)

Just as there is currently a glut of “young adult” novels bombarding cinema screens, many of them doomed to stall on an initial installment, so the success of Harry Potter ensured that every studio wished to try its hand at young fantasy adaptations. The Hunger Games’ success at least meant that Twilight did not represent a flash-in-the-pan for the former sub-genre, but nothing, as yet, has inherited the mantle of the Hogwarts’ spellcaster (Percy Jackson has stumbled to a second outing, but to the surprise of many). 

The Spiderwick Chronicles adapts (as far as I can tell) plot elements from the first three of Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black’s children’s books (there are five, which have been followed by a Beyond the Spiderwick Chronicles series). Predictably, there’s a large chunk of mythology and backstory to inform the viewer of, mostly involving the discoveries of Arthur Spiderwick (David Strathairn, the great-great uncle of the protagonists) and his field guide to fairies, the possession of which would represent an object of great power for the ogre Mulgarath (Nick Nolte). Twins Jared and Simon (Freddie Highmore) and sister Mallory (Sarah Bolger), who have just moved into the Spiderwick estate with their mother (Mary-Louise Parker), must prevent the book from falling into the ogre’s hands.

Karey Kirkpatrick has adapted a number of children’s novels, including The Little Vampire and Charlotte’s Web. While David Berenbaum’s CV is less impressive, the other credited writer is none other than the laudable John Sayles (who has his own link with Strathairn, 1999’s Limbo). Director Mark Waters (brother of the more scabrous Daniel) rises to the challenge of an effects-heavy adventure film admirably (for the most part). His calling cards were “when she still had so much promise” Lindsay Lohan films Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Given how good many of the effects are, it’s ironic that Waters comes unstuck with something as basic as Highmore sharing the screen (but not eyeline) with Highmore.

Nevertheless, the creatures are unanimously well-rendered, and Waters does a fine job in building up the tension as the magically-protected Spiderwick house comes under assault from a welter of goblins. The potentially confusing principles and rules of this world (who and how the fairie kingdom can be seen, for example) are established without fuss. Elsewhere, Waters knows to balance scares with laughs (the Martin Short-voiced Thimbletack’s honey-addiction is the only thing that can control his temper).

In some respects, this resembles a family-friendly Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark. Except, crucially, it has a vibrancy that the Guillermo Del Toro-produced film lacks. There’s a strong sense of a hidden and mysterious world, particularly in the opening stages, that creates a sense of anticipation and wonder far stronger than the rather mechanically-executed Harry Potter films.

While the performers are all competent, the choice of Freddie Highmore for the lead(s) brings with it a fair amount of baggage. Highmore is certainly a capable actor, and he draws easily identifiable distinctions between the twins, but he also has an intensity that can be creepy or unsettling when a more moderate approach is called for. Jared’s temper tantrums verge on demonic possession as depicted by Freddie; Haley Joel Osment showed a similar difficulty transitioning to teenage roles. You need to identify with Jared, ultimately, rather than dismiss him as a psychotic little shit (however, he certainly sells an extraordinarily Oedipal moment at a late stage; strong stuff for a kids’ movie). As such, I can’t think of more suitable casting than Highmore as Norman in the forthcoming Bates Motel TV series.

The other “human” actors are all fine; Bolger is especially spirited as the fencing-student big sister, while both Strathairn and Joan Plowright make a strong impression during their limited screen time (in connection with these characters, the film seems to deliver a curiously reactionary message regarding the natural order of aging and death). Unfortunately, this is another film blighted by the inane presence of oafish Seth Rogen. Credit to his agent, the pudding-faced actor has amassed a fair collection of voice roles. But he’s no less irritating for not being able to see him, just aesthetically less harmful.

Spiderwick’s worth a look, despite my reservations concerning the lead. This is a family film that isn’t afraid to scare the little ones, and one that provokes, rather than stems, the imagination. A bit of a shame it didn’t warrant any follow-ups. No doubt there will be a reboot in a few years’ time.  

***1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besidesBreaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It’s amazing what you can do when you don’t have to look yourself in the mirror any more.

Hollow Man (2000)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven very acutely critiqued his own choices when he observed of Hollow Manit really is not me anymore. I think many other people could have done that… there might have been twenty directors in Hollywood who could have done that”. It isn’t such a wonder he returned to Europe, and to quality, for his subsequent films. If Memoirs of an Invisible Man failed to follow up on the mental side effects of being seen right through found in HG Wells’ novel and (especially) in James Whale’s film, all Hollow Man does is take that tack, with the consequence that the proceedings degenerate into a banal action slasher, but with a naked Bacon instead of a guy in a hockey mask.

It’s not every day you see a guy get his ass kicked on two continents – by himself.

Gemini Man (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ang Lee seems hellbent on sloughing down a technological cul-de-sac to the point of creative obscurity, in much the same way Robert Zemeckis enmired himself in the mirage of motion capture for a decade. Lee previously experimented with higher frame rates on Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, to the general aversion of those who saw it in its intended form – 48, 60 or 120 fps have generally gone down like a bag of cold sick, just ask Peter Jackson – and the complete indifference of most of the remaining audience, for whom the material held little lustre. Now he pretty much repeats that trick with Gemini Man. At best, it’s merely an “okay” film – not quite the bomb its Rotten Tomatoes score suggests – which, (as I saw it) stripped of its distracting frame rate and 3D, reveals itself as just about serviceable but afflicted by several insurmountable drawbacks.

I have a cow, but I hate bananas.

The Laundromat (2019)
(SPOILERS) Steven Soderbergh’s flair for cinematic mediocrity continues with this attempt at The Big Short-style topicality, taking aim at the Panama Papers but ending up with a mostly blunt satire, one eager to show how the offshore system negatively impacts the average – and also the not-so-average – person but at the expense of really digging in to how it facilitates the turning of the broader capitalist world (it is, after all based on Jake Bernstein’s Secrecy World: Inside the Panama Papers Investigation of Illicit Money Networks and the Global Elite).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.

What about the meaningless line of indifference?

The Lion King (2019)
(SPOILERS) And so the Disney “live-action” remake train thunders on regardless (I wonder how long the live-action claim would last if there was a slim hope of a Best Animated Feature Oscar nod?) I know I keep repeating myself, but the early ‘90s Disney animation renaissance didn’t mean very much to me; I found their pictures during that period fine, but none of them blew me away as they did critics and audiences generally. As such, I have scant nostalgia to bring to bear on the prospect of a remake, which I’m sure can work both ways. Aladdin proved to be a lot of fun. Beauty and the Beast entirely tepid. The Lion King, well, it isn’t a badfilm, but it’s wearying its slavish respectfulness towards the original and so diligent in doing it justice, you’d think it was some kind of religious artefact. As a result, it is, ironically, for the most part, dramatically dead in the water.