Children's movies are tricky. What appeals to a 6-year-old will likely turn off a 10-year-old. What might be a theme a child needs to see is a theme that a parent might be horrified to have them exposed to. The filmmaker needs to capture attention spans that are growing ever shorter and ever more jaded as the internet and portable devices make 24-7 exposure more of a reality. And yet, to really work, the filmmaker also needs to make the movie at least palatable to adults. And all of this is, of course, complicated by the fact that films are made by adults trying to remember what it was about entertainment they liked as children.
Periodically, an adult remembers a book they loved as a child. I'm quite sure that's how this project got started. One adult, whether it was the director, screenwriter, producer, producer's girlfriend, whatever, adored this book as a child. They wanted to see it brought to life on the big screen. And, so, Hollywood fed the book into their big Children's Movie Formula shredder. And we got this.
The House with a Clock in Its Walls is pretty good, honestly. It has well-executed effects, good acting, and a serviceable plot. The plot takes a couple of interesting twists. The way magic works is cool and fun, if extremely short on the details. It's interesting that there is no romantic subplot at all, beyond mention that people are married.
It is desperately formulaic, though. And not so much in the set-up as in the execution. There are any number of scenes that could have been cut and pasted from any number of similar movies. Take out the threads of plot dictated by the source book, and there is very little to distinguish it, particularly visually. In fact, I think it's the effects more than anything else that ultimately keep this movie from being all it could be. It's not that they are bad; quite the contrary. They are very well executed. They are just executed in exactly the same way as Goosebumps or Jumanji or even as far back as Matilda. Can we blame this on Eli Roth as director? Probably not. I think this was definitely studio decisions. Rather than trying for anything unique to make the story pop, they went for the tried-and-true solution that would cost less and have no risk.
So now that I've dragged it down a bit, let me talk about what really worked. First, the cast. Cate Blanchett was, as always, perfect. Jack Black was surprisingly good. Not just tolerable, but actually right for the role and kept his zaniness to just the right level. He managed to be weird (that bit is important) without being either constantly in your face, wholly inappropriate, or untrue to the character. Between this, Jumanji, and even Goosebumps, I think Black has matured into a surprisingly good actor. Owen Vaccaro was great as Lewis, the kid protagonist. Unfortunately, Kyle MacLachlan was pretty much wasted in his role, which was both relatively small in terms of screen time and hampered by his makeup. Sunny Suljic, who portrayed budding politician and nascent best friend Tarby Corrigan, had a fantastic look and voice, but had real trouble emoting or evoking his character. If he gets some training/mentoring, he's going to be good, but he ended up putting a sour note in the otherwise great cast.
Second, the plot. We should forgive a lot of what looks like standard formula by remembering that this book is from 1973. It actually pre-dates some of the things that critics claim it rips off (much like when critics claimed that John Carter was a Star Wars clone). I think the highest praise I can give here is that the trailer immediately made me want to read the book. Much more, in fact, than it made me want to see the movie. The movie only increased that. There were a lot of world-building details and emotional undercurrents that got steam-rolled by the pace. There was too much drive to get to the next effect, or next joke, or next action sequence. But, that is the nature of movie adaptations. We have purchased the book, and look forward to it.
I always go back and forth on whether to apply standards of feminism-friendliness to kids' movies. On the one hand, many of them feel inappropriate. On the other, this is where we need to focus on shaping norms. How did it do? Fair to middling. It fails the Bechdel Test. Despite having five named female characters (if I counted correctly), none of them have a conversation with each other. At all. Did it pass the Mako Mori Test? Well, I think so. Florence (Cate Blanchett's character) definitely has a good character arc. But, it revolves around her role as a mother figure, which is not that different from basing an arc around being a romantic interest. The girl, Rose, also had a decent arc, and without being a romantic interest. It was also nice that those two girls were the smart ones. The crowd scenes leaned male, but women definitely appeared. It wasn't a fail, but I can't call it a success, either.
If you're on the fence about seeing it, I would recommend it. And I would recommend it in the theater (despite the fact that chattering children ruined it for my wife). The effects and sets are worth the big screen. If you looked at the trailer, though, and noped out of there (unless it was purely for Jack Black), you can safely give it a pass. It's not likely to be a classic or cultural touchstone.
