The Wrong Trousers: When Trousers are too Short

©Teoh, Michael // June 2012
*Contains Spoilers*

‘The Wrong Trousers’ is an Oscar winning 1993 stop motion clay animation from British animation studio Aardman (Shaun the Sheep, Arthur Christmas.) The film may consist of hundreds of thousands of pictures of lumps of clay, but director Nick Park (Chicken Run) tries his best. The techniques used (camera angles and movement, editing, and lighting) are as carefully and smartly used as in any live-action film. 

Wallace, an over-enthusiastic and somewhat crazy inventor, lives with Gromit, a highly intelligent pet dog, in a small, cosy English town house filled by various gadgets straight out of dreams. The story begins with an amusing scene regarding Gromit’s birthday, which he believes Wallace has forgotten. After two seemingly forgettable birthday presents, the situations takes a turn for the worse, as an evil penguin rents Gromit’s room in trade for a few pence.  The situation is ripe for laughs, which Park exploits well.

Everything about this film is executed well for what it is. Elements which could have  easily been weaknesses are turned into strengths. For instance, the silent penguin (in fact, Wallace is the only speaking character) has virtually no expressive capabilities except for his blinking eyes, but this only adds to his menacing nature. The film is filled with so much detail that multiple viewings wouldn’t hurt. Park does everything over the top, to emphasise the gags. 

The storytelling of ‘The Wrong Trousers’ is simple enough to hold the attention of youngsters, but a few of the references and inside jokes are intended for an older audience. Shot for shot there is more style here than a few other action films - style that is enjoyable both for its own sake and for effectively enhancing the story. Unfortunately, a 30 minute film can’t compete for an A grade in my system, but it deserves plaudits for style.

Grade: 5/10

Eragon and the Lost Potential

© Teoh, Michael // June 2012
*Contains Spoilers*


Eragon, in one word, is a waste. I fully understand the reasons as to why the movie received such bad reception world wide, but what I don’t see is how they never seem to mention the word ‘potential.’ I wonder this simply because that’s exactly what director Edward Speelers wasted. The book was wonderful, and with the descriptions and details Christopher Paolini has given in it, the film has come out as a large disappointment. 


As with the book Eragon is a humble farm boy who lives with his uncle Garrow and cousin Roran. When hunting in the spine - the dangerous mountains of Alagaësia he comes across what he believes to be a blue rock. Little does he know that what he holds is a dragon egg - and the last one at that. An adorable baby dragon then hatches and Eragon feels it appropriate to keep his new blue pet a secret. Once the dragon is big enough to flutter around, Eragon’s house is destroyed by the Ra’zac (species of monsters.) They also kill Eragon’s uncle - Garrow. Soon after he meets story-teller/former dragon rider Brom. Brom urges him to flee Carvahall to seek sanctuary with the Vardens - rebels of the evil king Galbatorix. Thus begins the journey. 


And the journey was too straightforward and boring. The first thing that distracts me from an immersive experience was the dragon egg. Whilst I know a dragon egg is considerably larger than one of, let’s say, a chicken, I cannot believe that the director and film staff would choose what they did to represent Saphira’s home. It quite frankly looks like an oversized jelly bean. From there, many mistakes can be seen by the director. A 2 second scene of rain sandwiched by the burning sun, people disappearing and horses appearing out of nowhere are just a few examples of this.


In all honesty, the 544 page book put better images in my head than any of the overdone and clumsy explosions and magic. It may be due to the fact I like my imagination and what it derives from different texts - but that does not overshadow the fact that Speelers got a lot wrong in his debut film. What is really a shame is that his debut film is Eragon. 


In conclusion, Eragon may not be as bad as everyone claims it to be - but that doesn’t hide the fact that the movie has not captured a single ounce of the magic that seemed to pour out the pages of Paolini’s epic.



Grade: 3/10

Falling Sparrows Fall Short

© Teoh, Michael // 2012.
*Contains Spoilers*
 

Murray Keane's 2000 low-budget drama film ‘Falling Sparrows’ pans out a surprisingly well though-out plot and moral. However, it seems rushed; causing confusion to viewers.

The film kicks off with feet running across a jungle, barbaric war-cries. Guns held up in the air. At this point, anyone would be expecting another action flick with unnecessary blood-shed and a few too many explosions. Until the camera zooms out to reveal that those soldiers are mere children and that those guns contain nothing but air-pellets.The camera pans to another group of kids who are flinging water-balloons. A fake thick German accent reveal that these are the Nazis.  This is a outdoor blitzkrieg - a simple war game for the children.


Whilst the general intention of director Murray Keane is executed okay, not all scenes support this cause. I feel it would have been a better film has more detail and character interaction been included.


As the action briefly pauses a symbol pops-up. At the Nazi base, the kids have shot down sparrows for simply sitting on the base’s ledge. Unfortunately, Keane expects all viewers to immediately recognise his brilliant idea. It’s not so easy.


Looking at this film on a deeper level reveals that wars affect everyone & everything. Overall I believe Keane did an OK job with this short, thought-provoking film.


Grade: 5/10