The House with a Clock in Its Walls [DVD]

After reading some of the leading reviews, I almost didn't buy this. I'm glad that I went ahead and got it. I thought it was entertaining, not very scary (I'm 46, but I actively avoid scary movies because I have a strong imagination), and the blu-ray has just outstanding video and audio. The Dolby Atmos track is fantastic. Some said that this isn't PG and isn't for kids. I'm pretty sure that this would have been PG back when _I_ was a kid. There's a lot of things that get into PG movies these days that never would have made it back then. There isn't any swearing that I remember, and certainly no f-bombs. There's also no discussion or insinuation about sex. If your kids are easily frightened, then probably pass on this, but it's not extremely scary. To those who take exception to certain symbolism in the movie, that's totally their right. I get offended by things that others don't. I would like to say this, though. If you don't believe in the symbolism, you won't be offended. I wasn't offended and even after reading the reviews didn't notice most of what they talked about. If you do believe in the symbolism and think that stuff _actually_ happens (like pacts with demons), then maybe talk to your kids about it instead of saying that this isn't a movie for kids. Unless you live in a very controlled environment, your kids are going to see and experience a lot of stuff that you aren't aware of. I say that as a kid whose parents sometimes did just that, so I learned about things from my friends. As for me, there was nothing in this movie that I found offensive at all. Did it show a demon making a pact with a guy? Yep. A bad guy. Movies have good and evil, and that was the evil part of it. It didn't glorify it like, "hey, this is the cool thing to do," or anything like that. It wasn't even a big part of the movie. So, yeah - a pretty great movie. Jack Black did a very good job, although it wasn't typical Jack Black style. I think that he just acted his part well. Cate Blanchett was excellent, too. They had a good comedic chemistry. As I mentioned above, the Atmos soundtrack is very, very good. I got this in part because I just upgraded to an Atmos system and am trying it out, and I wasn't disappointed.

One of my all time favorites! I bought it in a DVD and play it over and over. The quality was new and perfect. All actors were exceptional. Casting and atmosphere were spot on. Bravo!

Good movie, entertaining and joy for Halloween season

The production of The house with a clock in its walls is done well with good acting, scenery and effects. The story is wildly different from the book and the book itself at best seems to just tumble toward a story rather than the author having a definite one in mind anyway. A ho hum book made into a movie is an adventurous undertaking. There are multitudes of changes, some of these differences: The house is way more animated in this movie which you could expect but I mean like way more animated by a factor of 1000. Lewis, the boy, in the book has no interests in dictionaries or complex words (they should have kept this as the dictionary stuff doesn't do anything for the movie), doesn't wear goggles (see assessment of the dictionary crap), and is made fun of by other children because he's obese and uncoordinated unlike the thin nerdy kid played by Owen Vaccaro. Maybe later in the books this is true (I've not read the others) but in this story the boy in the movie is very different from the character in the book. The uncle doesn't play the sax all night or at all and his magics are rare. So like all movies based on a book there are of course variances but this is better called a movie vaguely inspired by a book. That said, this movie is very funny and better than the book, I think in about every way being a more cohesive and directed story line than the book ever provided. Cate Blanchett's character is an old French sorceress but as played by the Australian actress she's about as French as a fry. Jack Black plays his character pretty close to the mood and feeling of the one in the book even if his use of magic and hobbies in the movie stray a lot from the text, which is probably I very good thing. In all this movie if very fun, R.L. Stine's Goosebumps'esk ride actually done better than the movies that are actually based on R.L. Stine books. It's a great family style Halloween film although may be a little intense at times for small children.

I'll be fair in admitting that I had very little interest in this film until I saw the negative 1-star reviews overreacting to theatrical elements in the movie. To continue being fair, I realize that not everyone sees eye-to-eye on stories involving the supernatural. It really is unfortunate that this movie is being knocked down because of its subject matter, when it's not a secret what it is about at all. If you have children or rigid viewpoints on life, I would highly recommend doing your research before trashing this film unfairly. I didn't think the film looked that great in the trailers as it is, but seeing now that a well-known horror director was attempting something a little lighter intrigued me. It's not only fantasy, but definitely a HORROR film that pulls no punches when it comes to dark material. This movie is not only better than advertised, but it's going to be a cult classic for years to come. The director is Eli Roth, which should immediately throw up a few red flags for families as I'm sure you remember hearing his name in the news around the time that Hostel came out in the mid-2000s. He is one of the named kings in the dying wave of horror torture flicks, and a simple Google search would tell you that this is his first attempt at a children's movie. So in removing all of the gratuitous violence, nudity & gore, we are left with a movie chock full of horror that apparently can cross some boundaries for audiences. I think many have been quick to criticize Roth's filmography in the past as being childish and gratuitous, but THWACIIW proves that there is some skill behind all of the shock & schlock. I would go as far as saying that this is his best film by far, and it's easily one of my new favorite horror films. The second red flag is that this movie is actually based on a children's novel of the same name, so it's already out there as being children's material available for you to research. There's a plethora of information out there already about the series of novels by John Bellairs, which could tip you off to whether or not this movie would appeal to your family. This movie isn't Hollywood shoving the devil's gospel down your child's throat in the modern era, it's a novelization of a story that couldn't have been told 45+ years ago on film because the overreaction probably would have been even stronger back then. I have yet to read the book (though I plan to), but the film really couldn't be any further from "teaching your kids satanic rituals". It really is about dealing with loss & new situations, making friends, doing the right thing, patience over gratification, and other valuable life lessons that can be learned from something as wicked as raising the dead (somewhat on accident). Necromancy, evil, and magic spells are not foreign to children's literature or film, and it should come as no surprise that they can be used as storytelling devices much the same as anything else. The screenplay is written by Eric Kripke who is a longtime show-runner for the no longer immortal television hit series, Supernatural (is that a third red flag I see?) What I love about the film is its ability to go from really funny to pretty freakin' scary at the drop of a hat. There are some automatons in the house that come to life that are pretty creepy, and even a quick scene with the demon Azazel in the spooky black forest that appears to be pretty spicy for the average viewer. These scenes are ripped straight out of classic horror movies, but they don't have the typical mainstays of an R-rated flick. They are used to tell the story, and are not gratuitous or pandering in the slightest like they could be in a horror film. If they make you feel fear, discomfort, despair, worry, anxiety or anything similar about yourself or the characters, then the film is doing what it's intended to do. They don't linger on these shots to show it off or create some visual attraction that's supposed to haunt your dreams. They're there as antagonists to our main characters, who have an understanding of magic but perhaps are now seeing that it could be used nefariously against them. There are far more instances of characters warning each other of the evils of certain magic, than there are scenes of them using magic for evil or showing that it's "okay to do". Honestly, the most terrifying and perhaps indulgent part of the film is that the main baddie wants to exterminate humanity, though I haven't seen much complaint regarding that plot. To sum it all up, this movie is downright awesome and I'm thankful to the folks' reviews who made me realize it was my kind of movie. You don't get Jack Black, and especially Cate Blanchett, if there isn't some redeeming value to the story, movie, or crew. Blanchett absolutely crushes her role and makes Florence Zimmerman a character that I'm willing to pay tons to see a solo movie for because her character was super cool. There needs to be more Cate Blanchett as Florence Zimmerman, however we can make that happen with the remaining books. Jack Black is his typical self and really plays well off of Cate as they play the type of friends that love to jab at each other. The director's commentary featuring Roth and Black was also really informative and interesting, even stating how the two main actors were both intimidated by each's other skills in their respective genres of drama & comedy. To top it off, the film is a great all-around movie with tons of heart, humor, and horror. It has a little childish humor that I'm not typically a fan of, but it's not persistent or overused throughout the film. There are a few scarier scenes that I will admit were scary for children, but they're phenomenal scenes of horror film that will amaze those that know what they're in for. Eli Roth considers this in the same vein as Amblin Entertainment, and that should also go a long way in saying not only the quality of this film, but the credibility of its presentation. It's not him just referencing it, as you'll see the Amblin card at the start of the movie... This is a great film, and it's a shame that there are reviewers here and probably elsewhere trashing it for its darker content and ability to do more than the average family fantasy film. Does the kid spill blood into a Necromancy book to perform a resurrection spell.. yeah, sure. Does he do it because he's enticed by evil and wants to see what happens? No way! There is so much more to this film than the warlocks doing magic and evil tempting good... My future children and I will enjoy this film together, as it's a complete genre classic in my eyes. Highly recommended for fans of Jack Black, Eli Roth, Cate Blanchett, horror movies, children's genre mashups, and "against the grain" type films, even fans of Kyle MacLachlan there's room for you too (who is almost a totem of the era/vibe that this film is trying to replicate). 4K came in great condition with a Blu-ray and digital copy. My copy came with a slipcover that has some foily shine on the silver/gold parts. I hope there is a re-release with a cool case, or a sequel/spinoff coming from this, because it was seriously awesome. If you want a good PG horror film the likes of which we haven't seen in decades, this is it!!! 4 out of 5 stars for the film, 5 out of 5 stars for the release and to balance the negativity around this movie.

Haven't read the book, but the movie is good. Jack Black and Cate Blanchett are so funny. Owen Vaccaro does a great job as the nephew. There were moments that were over the top and felt "acted", but overall, a fun movie for a middle schooler who would like to watch something scary and they aren't into blood and gore.

Firstly, this is not a movie for young kids. I think it would be ok for older kids, but it's got this one scene in it that frankly very much disturbed this very much adult. So this is definitely a prescreener. That said... I loved the book, which I read as a kid and still have, and still re-read at times. I don't expect movies to follow books to the letter - a good adaptation often adds interesting twists - but I do expect them to be true to the core of the story. This one tries, I think, and succeeds in some places, falls rather flat in others, and deviates significantly in one essential way, which came close to ruining the movie for me. More on that at the close of the review. While the movie does capture a lot of the look and feel of the book, it also has a large helping of potty humor that I found out of place, but kids may enjoy, along with some of the other image jokes and the more detailed encounters with various scary things, like the automatons, pumpkins, and the wonderful purple serpent gone wrong (which I wish had been in the book, as it was such a perfect add, and would have made an awesome drawing by Gorey). Black and Blanchette are quite well cast as Uncle Jonathan and Ms. Zimmerman, and their back and forth zingers are as good as the book's. Not all their lines are great, though, especially when things get more serious, and the whole addition of the World War II backgrounding felt forced. I can see how the writers were trying to give these two characters more dimension and pathos, but it comes off a bit awkward, like dipping into a pool but not going for the actual swim. The fact is, the book's story is about Lewis. And that's just fine. But the book doesn't make Uncle Jonathan and Ms. Zimmerman 2D, not at all. But this isn't Harry Potter, where we have time and space for fully developed, complex and complicated adults. This script tries to shove all that in in a few scenes, and it comes off sort of shallow. Blanchette also looks way too perfect and about 20 years too young, but I can live with that. The number on her arm frankly shocked me, but in a good way, so to speak. It was both subtle and raw. I wish they had done that and nothing else, honestly. Or other touches like that, that the younger audience might miss, but add a lot of power for the adults. You wouldn't need any speaking lines at all, really. Just the visual references. Lewis adapts well, but Tarby doesn't so much. He's much more 3D in the book, rather than a movie trope jerk kid. Selenna Izard is handled all wrong and gets almost entirely sidelined - she has a much larger and frankly more terrifying presence in the book. She's not supposed to be some exotic hottie. In the book, it's HER spectacles that appear, not her husband's, and Bellairs uses that association to completely rivet his reader. The movie does get the joy of magic and wonder down, especially the scene in the backyard. Places like that in the movie are why we all love Amblin productions. Also, the switch regarding what the clock actually does is a nice touch, and the book being locked away actually makes more sense, as does the rule about it. What upset me, though, was the inclusion of demonology. And not for Bible-thumping reasons. First of all, demons, real demons, have no place in a children's movie. Yes, the book has necromancy in it, which is hardly light fare, but introducing an actual Prince of Hell into the story is just beyond. It trivializes unadulterated religious evil, adds a minor but horrible character for absolutely no reason (the story doesn't need the addition, on any level at all), and frankly undercuts the entire original story. No demon gives Izard his clock spell in the book. Izard comes up with it all on his own. There's no reason he might not have done the same in the movie's tale. Bellairs' book isn't about demons and the walking dead - it's about the evil that can be found in people themselves, and also about the good and the brave parts. If this movie had held true to that, it would have been a tribute to Amblin. But it didn't, and it wasn't, and I don't understand how a demon got into the story at all. Not only was it a disturbing scene that might give even me nightmares - it was also unnecessary and distracting, and robbed the bad guys of a lot of their self-determination. It only seemed to be trying to explain how Izard - like the other adults, traumatized by the war and therefore somehow magically immediately more complex - went from good guy to very bad guy. I can see why this movie tried to shift things more toward his character, and set up the former friendship between him and Jonathan. That, I could have totally gone with, minus a sexed-up Mrs. Izard, anyway. But the demon angle just blows it. Frankly, throwing in that part in some ways trivializes what soldiers in the war went through. War is evil enough. You don't need to toss in a power of Hell. Ultimately, this movie is trying to be too many things - it has the splats and pows of a fun kids' movie, up against something trying to adopt aspects of Saving Private Ryan and perhaps Schindler's List, both of which are excellent, excellent movies that should not be shallowly borrowed from. And then we throw in Azazel, who is perfectly placed in Hellboy but not at all in this story. It's using a Buick to explain why the fly got swatted, and it's an element that belongs firmly in adult horror, not in a movie acting like it's a magical romp about defeating evil wizards. Three stars for trying hard. But I'm thinking only two for actual execution. I hope, if there are more Bellairs movies, that they are better. The stories deserve that. Go read the books. Doesn't matter if you're nine or fifty-nine. They are worth reading.

Cue movie