This is a place to find updates about the film quizzes that can be found on the Just A Little Bit Random Twitch channel. Listed below is the date and time of the next quiz, and the answer sheet for it. Teams are welcome to each quiz, as well as those on there own, or in duos, etc. Currently these quizzes are being done to help those with the current state of self-isolation and lockdown. To help some relieve the boredom, and in some cases loneliness, that such a situation can bring. There might be some further future in them at some point, will have to wait and see. Also listed below are the results of the previous quiz. This post will be updated whenever a new quiz is announced/ is coming up. Make sure to keep checking back to this page if you want to take part in a future/ upcoming quiz!
Thank you to everyone who took part in the Just A Little Bit Random Self-Isolation Film Quiz (again, there’s probably a better title out there somewhere). Genuinely very much appreciated and I hope you enjoyed the quiz. Thank you for all the kind comments so far too! They are truly greatly appreciated.
I may do more of these at some point in the future, so make sure to follow the Just A Little Bit Random Twitch page, or my Twitter, or just keep checking back on this blog site to find out when/ if another one is coming along. I’ll also try to make it easier (and definitely shorter), sorry about the difficulty and length issues with this one.
But, for now here are the full results of the quiz:
Honourable mention – Fried_Gold, who wasn’t able to properly send across answers
8th – Dave Oskar Gets Real
7th – Iconic Film Duo Owl Mum
6th – Leese Geese
5th – Play With My Pussies
4th – You’re A Qizzard Harry
3rd – The Pearsons
2nd – My 20 Year Quiz Hell Only Me!
1st – The Mole People
Thank you to everyone for taking part and congratulations to all the winners! Hopefully “see” you again if another one of these goes ahead. Thanks again!
Amongst a number of not-quite-projects that will likely never see the light of day one thing that I’ve had sat around for a while is a film quiz. As the world gradually gets put on lockdown and most people work from home and self-isolate I’ve decided to finally do something with this quiz.
On Sunday 29th March at 8pm (UK time) over on the Just A Little Bit Random Twitch channel a variety of film related topics will be covered and tested. Anyone can take part, even in a team – thanks to the wonders of Skype, Discord, Facebook and various other platforms that offer some form of video call or voice chat. If in a team you only need one person to fill out answers via this answer sheet.
While I can’t exactly ensure masses of quality this should still, hopefully, be a good time for all. Something to distract from the potential boredom of self-isolation, and for some the loneliness of it.
So, feel free to join and take part, no matter how many people are in your team, on Sunday 29th March at 8pm for the Just A Little Bit Random Self-isolation Film Quiz (there’s definitely a better, shorter title out there somewhere). Hopefully “see” you there!
Image Credit – Yasmine Gateau (Originally for Variety)
Film journalist and writer Helen O’Hara kindly joins me for a follow-up interview to one held two years ago to talk about the change we’ve seen in that time when it comes to the representation, acknowledgement and treatment of women in the film industry. Alongside what Hollywood might look like after Harvey Weinstein’s 23 year prison sentence, how to change the look of the representation and diversity of awards nominees and much more!
12 strangers find themselves in the middle of nowhere as they are hunted down by people who they initially believed were just part of a conspiracy theory.
The Hunt was initially meant to be released six months ago, back in September of 2019, however after a number of mass shootings it was removed from release slates and seemingly pushed to the back of a shelf. Watching the film it seems like its depiction of gun violence, and hunting humans for sport, isn’t the only controversial element of it that caused it to be delayed. Much of the narrative is politically charged, centring on 12 innocent blue-collar strangers who find themselves being hunted down by what they see as the liberal elite a great deal of the dialogue revolves around these ideas of American politics. The feud between two completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.
The liberals are obsessed with making sure to always use the correct pronouns and politically correct terms, the diversity of the people who respond to them on Twitter and using right-wing politics against the people who believe in them, particularly the way that they seemingly view the second amendment (about the freedom to carry firearms). Meanwhile the central figures of the film are shown to be racist, conspiracy theory spreading and believing (one often claims about how he has a podcast in which he spoke about “the manor game” in which the characters find themselves a part of) and, as the liberal elites call them, “deplorable”. Throughout the entire run-time the film obsesses over trying to show an attempted hyperbolic view of both sides of an argument that never really properly starts, or finishes, in the film. And one of the biggest issues that comes from this is the fact that it seems to be played for laughs that are never really funny. The film never touches the lines of satire either, which could possibly help, but instead it just seems to try to be a politically charged horror-comedy that never properly takes flight.
Betty Gilpin leads the cast as tough fighter Crystal, labelled Snowball by the attackers. As those around her are rapidly killed off one by one she manages to survive and fight back, using her own skills and initiative to survive. While there are some decent moments of action, especially with Gilpin at the forefront the film seems to be too obsessed with showing the impact and gory detail of the immense bloodshed (while still remaining in the boundaries of a 15 rating, when some were expecting an 18, although still showing far more than Tarantino’s 18 rated Once Upon A Time In Hollywood) to actually focus on some fast-paced action, the brief glimpses that we do get of such are relatively good.
The film tries to show a pretty starry cast; including the likes of Emma Roberts, Ike Barinholtz and Hilary Swank, however none ever get the time to actually show a proper performance due to a limited amount of screen-time. While initially we begin to get some form of balance between characters in the first few minutes, however as everything vanishes and the rather thin “plot” begins to unveil there’s either constant jumping from character to character as if having a new lead and focus every five minutes until finally giving in and following Gilpin as she tries to work out who and what she can trust, if anything. Within this there could be some form of interest, but because of the personalities of stereotypical “redneck”/ Republican characters, as they are genuinely credited, ‘Don???’ (Wayne Duvall) and ‘(Shut The F**k Up) Gary’ (Ethan Suplee) again the film drags itself down by having to make literally everything political.
Yes, it could be said there there is some form of balance. Both sides are shown in a negative light with awful personalities. However, having to spend time with these horrible, overemphasised people, even if the film is only 89 minutes, just isn’t enough. The humour doesn’t land, the action doesn’t seem focused enough and overall the full entertainment value doesn’t come in. There are, admittedly, some moments that do manage to break in and create some slight enjoyment. But, those are soon broken by the same old formula.
Maybe the fact that the film seems to have worn its negative responses like a medal of honour, the poster for the new release of the film displayed many negative reviews and quotes saying how harsh and bloody the violence is alongside a quote saying “the most talked about film of the year is one that no one’s actually seen”. There could be something more to The Hunt if it had a few more layers and potentially a bit more of a deeper plot. However with it’s poor dialogue, character design and general idea there’s not a lot that can break through. While the action does show some promise it decides to focus too much on gore and blood rather than the action itself, apart from in one or two scenes which are the highlights of the film, to be overly worthwhile and satisfying. While it might entertain and amuse fans of frequent, intense full-blown bloody horror then this might entertain and engage, however this film certainly isn’t for everyone.
The Hunt’s hyperbolic political nature and dialogue isn’t it’s biggest problem, it’s jumpy nature and lack of detail also get in the way. While some action works there’s a lot that focuses too much that dwells on blood and gore rather than the action. This is a film for fans of high gore horror, but not a great deal of others.
Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 39 minutes, Director – Peter Segal
A CIA spy (Dave Bautista) trains a nine year old (Chloe Coleman) after she discovers his secret mission
The tough-guy trains/ looks after kids story has been done many times before. A big action star is put into a fish-out-of-water style tale as the tough-guy role is paired with a young child. My Spy is, in a number of ways, no different. Dave Bautista plays JJ, a CIA spy who, after a mission goes slightly wrong, is relegated to observing a mother and daughter in Chicago instead of going around the world to combat terrorists. The reason for the pair being observed being that they are the relations of the one man who got away from JJ’s mission-gone-wrong (Greg Bryk). All that he needs is one more weapon that, when paired with the one he already has, has the ability to destroy an entire city.
However, it’s not long until JJ and partner Bobbi (Kristen Schaal), a spy hopeful constantly pushed back to what’s known as “the van” observing what happens and telling the spies what to do, are discovered by the girl that they are observing. Sophie (Chloe Coleman) threatens to show her Mum (Parisa Fitz-Henley) recorded proof of what’s actually going on with their new upstairs neighbours unless she can get something in return for not doing so. It’s all pretty standard stuff.
Initially JJ takes her ice skating, something which he ‘amusingly’ can’t do himself, so that she can meet up with people from school that she’s trying to be friends with. Overtime Sophie begins to use JJ for more things, bringing him into school for a Parents And Special Friends Day, where he reveals some of his military and CIA past to great reception from both the kids and adults, and gradually making Sophie one of the popular kids. And, of course, it’s not long until JJ begins to train his growing nine year old counterpart in some of the ways of spying, something which Bobbi would prefer is taught to her, or nobody at all – especially as everything that’s happening goes against the mission in the first place.
All of this takes centre stage, at points you forget that there’s actually a villain or a reason for JJ being there to watch the two-member family. Bryk’s villain appears intermittently but most of the time rarely and briefly. However, once the humour begins to start and get rolling this doesn’t really seem to matter that much. One of the reasons you forget about this detail that’s mostly key in the third act is because you begin to get invested within the central relationship. The humour starts and as the gags have a greater success rate the film as a whole becomes more enjoyable. The first 20-25 minutes as the film seems to be filled with various odd references that fail to raise a laugh and give the impression of something tired and lacking, Notting Hill and Iron Man 2 are both referenced in the first 3 or 4 minutes; another line makes reference to dancing being “like the wedding at the end of Shrek”. It’s such lines that even the editors seem to want to get rid of as they immediately cut to either a new action or line of dialogue pretty quickly or just jump to a new scene entirely, knowing that some of these lines would possibly seem outdated or simply just tired in even a film released five or more years ago.
In fact the turning point of the film is when the highlights that are the characters of Todd (Noah Danby) and Carlos (Devere Rogers). Carlos being the talkative figure, although most of the time relaying what Todd has apparently said, although the character is shown to only ever grunt. There’s something about the pair that when the punchlines arrive, although they are the centre of only a couple of running jokes, that leads to the humour being brought in that most of the audience seems to react to. And once this humour is brought in it seems that the screenwriters click and realise what they need to do. Continuing along slightly similar lines with the humour, although just about avoiding being a one note film.
Much like the presence of the bad guy the amount of action present in the film is relatively minimal. yet enough to warrant the film a 12 rating (despite still being a family film – amidst some, as the BBFC puts it, “moderate bad language”). However, when it comes to the big finale of the film, which still features a fair bit of cliche, there is still a fair bit to like and enjoy. It’s done well enough to avoid feeling cheesy and have some mild entertainment value. Topping off what has been a fairly decent and enjoyable film. Yes, there are some bumps throughout it and the start is certainly uneven and begins to indicate something far too conventional and unfunny for its own good. But, as the film goes on and the humour develops it begins to pick up the pace, recognise what it needs to do to get better and just about fulfils that. Making for a decent family film that passes the time well enough and manages to just about subvert expectations. And it’s all down to that central relationship in which the viewer becomes mildly invested in.
While it starts off as the same cliche tough-guy – young child buddy film My Spy gradually turns into a funnier and more entertaining feature. Bringing the viewer in to the central relationship and providing them with enough humour from almost every character to avoid boredom from this surprisingly amusing family film.
A plant designed to make people happy begins to affect the brains of those creating and breeding it.
The best way to describe the gist of Little Joe is Little Shop Of Horrors meets Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. The titular Little Joe is a plant designed to bring happiness to those that smell it. However, the plant itself cannot breed, it’s sterile. So, because of this it finds a way to infect the minds of those that smell it; beginning to control them, making them happy and making the plant the priority in all their lives. Spreading from person to person as the feared plant controls those that it’s inside the minds of to share it with other people.
However, you can’t tell when someone has been infected by the plant, their behaviour remains mostly the same, despite one or two changes in relation to how they all seem to almost worship it and the success that it has; all building up to releasing it to the public at a flower fair. As this event gets closer there’s no denying that there are fine elements of tension that build up as the plant begins to dominate the minds of the breeders that care for it almost like a child. One prominent breeder being Alice (Emily Beecham), one of the leaders of the Little Joe programme, named after her own son Joe (Kit Connor); who the plant takes control of early in the film. Alice, despite not being taken over by the bright red straw-like top of the flower, sees the good in the plant and believes that it can be of great benefit to those around her. However, when co-worker Bella (Kerry Fox) begins to speak against what she is working on after a series of negative events and interactions involving her normally trusted and calm dog, Alice gradually begins to doubt her own work, and sees the strange behaviour in her co-workers.
None more so than Chris (Ben Whishaw). Alice initially has a close working relationship with Chris, something which her son Joe believes could be something more with the way that Chris behaves around her. As Whishaw’s initially quiet character becomes more outspoken about his dedication towards Little Joe Alice begins to notice some strange behaviour. Through such events, and the fact that we only see a small amount of people smell the flower there’s a fair deal of unease and slight tension in the film. Alice faces a dilemma both at work and in her personal life. Is she just making things up, or seeing things that aren’t there? Or is she slowly beginning to feel a distance with her son, amongst her colleagues, who is changing as he grows up, after all she is spending a lot more time at work.
Throughout the film the words “you need to talk to it” and “you can hear it talk back” are repeated by a number of different characters. The fact that the plant is treated as a living, breathing human with a mind of its own – which in a number of ways it does have – adds to the creepy and unsettling nature of the film. When mixed with the loud and tense effect of the lightly used score and music, which at some points does create an effective jump acre by itself when it just seems to start at the best possible point, there is certainly an effect when it comes to the horror element of this weird little independent sci-fi horror that will probably go under the radar for many people, which is a fair shame.
While the horror isn’t always present, which seems to be the intention of director and co-writer, alongside Géraldine Bajard, Jessica Hausner, there is certainly an eerie nature during a number of scenes, which while not exactly intense is effective. There’s something about the precise and rather clean direction of Hausner that adds to the overall air and feel that the film has. Taking time to linger on certain elements, creating a somewhat slow and steady pace that also helps to put the viewer into the mindset of many of the characters and feel a further sense of unease; while also allowing for the gradual pace of the plants spread to be felt in an almost sustained way.
As mentioned there’s a seemingly clean air to Hausner’s direction, something which when you see the slight twitches in the personalities of those that have been possessed by the plant you almost begin to question whether they have been taken over or not, even if only for a brief amount of time. What the film never does is make you doubt Alice. You know she’s right, even if she is doubting herself. You know that those around her are ‘wrong’, or at least have been taken over, that’s never denied or doubted. There’s a straight direction in which the film travels along, clear and direct. And this all leads to a bold and interesting final 15-20 minutes. The tension that’s played with throughout coming back and creating even more mild fear as to what could happen if this plant does eventually get released into the world. This is something that carries throughout most of the film. And while not quite present in every scene it’s definitely there every now and then, creating a particular feeling for the film as the tone doesn’t quite change from scene to scene, but the feeling does. Little Joe is certainly a unique film and it’s possibly not going to be something that everyone’s going to like. But, for what it is it’s a rather good cross between genres with some mild unease and great use of score and music thrown in for good measure.
Little Shop Of Horrors meets Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, Little Joe is an interesting blend of genres. Lined with good performances and wonderful use of effective music this is a very clean, direct film that while varying in style and feeling at some points certainly has a mild sense of appreciated tension and fear.
Cert – U, Run-time – 1 hour 42 minutes, Director – Dan Scanlon
Two brothers (Tom Holland, Chris Pratt) go on a quest to bring back their dad for just one day.
It’s clear from the second the audience enters the board-game inspired fantasy realm of Pixar’s latest feature that establishes it as something very different from what the studio has produced in the past. While all the standard Pixar elements are there this almost feels like a rather un-Pixar film, however, this is not to say that the quality is anything away from what the animation giant has offered in the past. There’s something about the almost mythical style of the world in which the film is set that helps to provide it with a feeling similar to that of a number of 80’s classics, especially the likes of Time Bandits and Labyrinth.
Ian (Tom Holland) and Barley (Chris Pratt) are two elf brothers living in a world of pixies, unicorns, dragons, centaurs, cyclopes and gelatinous cubes. Ian has just turned 16 and is looking to turn his life around, become more confident, socialise more and pluck up the courage to invite people to a party. However, Barley is a much more confident, unashamedly loud figure. His life revolves around board games such as Quest Of Yore – a role-playing game that he claims is based on the factual history of the world in which the film is set in. It’s this game that helps to lead him and Ian on their quest to find a phoenix gem that will help to cast a visitation spell to bring their dad back for just one day. The catch is that they’ve already brought back half of their father, the waist down.
Barley has a limited amount of memories about his Dad, whereas younger brother Ian has none, his aim is to just get to meet his Dad just once in his life. It’s this that very much creates the emotional core of the film, and it’s also this that proves this to be a Pixar film. While Onward isn’t exactly the big punch that some might expect from the studio that brought audiences Up, Inside Out, Monsters Inc and Toy Story 3 there are still one or two empathetic beats, especially towards the end of the film.
What strikes most about Onward is it’s design and humour. The animation is, as expected, a high quality. The studio that helped to master hair and water stands out now with realistic looking sweat on mythical creatures! This is mostly noticed in the first few scenes of the film, as the plot is gradually forming bit by bit. It’s said that sometimes if you’re noticing how great the animation is you’re not properly focusing on the film and the plot; this certainly isn’t always the case. But, in the case of Onward this is part of a problem. There are still some chuckles and good ideas, but as a whole the start of the film isn’t the most engaging thing, it’s relatively average. However, as the plot begins to take pace and the road-trip element of the film begins things begin to get better, and more enjoyable.
The true spirit of adventure and exploration that the film takes great pride in exploring, with its characters of all shapes and sizes. The various references to classic fantasy films – a restaurant displays a sign declaring “now serving 2nd breakfast” – and board games all help to further fuel the energy and creative nature of the film. Through the various landscapes of motorways, run-down taverns and caves there’s a lot that the viewer experiences throughout the journey, and the design of each setting is highly detailed. All of this happens while the central themes and ideas, which while fairly simple, are never forgotten. There’s a fair deal of heart about the film, and a clear passion for the setting and inspirations from the creators, and even a number of the cast members.
Aside from the road-trip that the brothers, and the bottom half of their father, go on one of the most entertaining ideas that the film presents is that of the boys mother (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) travelling behind them with the assistance of The Manticore (Octavia Spencer – who sounds as if she’s having delightful fun voicing the character), who claims that without her help the central duo will unleash a curse that will lead them to not be able to meet their dad, and could put their own lives in danger. This is as close to a villain that the film has. While the idea of the threat lingers, and in some scenes helps to escalate the fantastical nature of the piece. Yet, the lack of an actual villain, or even villainous presence, helps the film. It doesn’t exactly feel fresh, but it definitely allows for the tone of adventure to break through even more, and allows for more concentration on the central characters.
Onward is a film that revels in its basis. Paying homage to fantasy films and games that inspire it, and allowing them to fuel the creativity and imagination of the basis of the film. Whether exploring the various mythical creatures or the magic that lines of the film there’s a lot to like. While it takes a bit of time for everything to piece together and the road-trip to start once it does the plot, and the clear fun that the cast are having voicing these colourful and well-designed characters, help to bring the audience into the world of the film. A fantastical land rooted deeply in detail and thought, that never distract from the plot once it starts. The heart and humour are there, and while the tears aren’t present the finished product is certainly a worthwhile effort for all ages. Sometimes for everyone to enjoy no matter where they stand on fantasy, and also a great way to hopefully introduce kids to classic 80’s titles in a similar vein.
The tears don’t exactly flow in the emotional moments of Onward, but that doesn’t stop the adventure from being a funny, enjoyable and excellently designed one. Calling back to the likes of Labyrinth and Time Bandits this is certainly something different from Pixar, but it’s still a success.
Cert – 12, Run-time – 1 hour 52 minutes, Director – Peter Cattaneo
When their husbands and wives go off to fight in the war in Afghanistan a group of women form a choir to take their minds away from worry.
Director Peter Cattaneo may be best associated with his 1997 feature debut The Full Monty. The film was a big hit at the BAFTA’s and even managed to pick up nominations in the Best Picture, Director and Original Screenplay categories at the Oscars. When it comes to slightly obscure underdog comedies it’s often the film that many will call back to, the term “feel good” also being frequently used in the same sentence. And Military Wives does have similar hints to the director’s possibly most famous film; minus the nudity and most of the men, and with a fair deal more singing.
Inspired by – “inspired by” being the key detail, this is a largely fictitional story – the Military Wives Choir, famously formed by Gareth Malone in the BBC series The Choir: Military Wives, the story follows a group of women whose husbands and wives have gone off to fight in the rising Afghanistan war. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) has been appointed to lead the activities for the women in the hope of taking their minds off of the worries of what their partners are going through. However, it seems that the activities mostly consist of getting drunk in an evening and coffee mornings. That is until, during a brain-storming session led by Kristin Scott Thomas’ uptight, proper and mistrusting Kate, the suggestion of singing is thrown up.
It’s not long until the various members of the Flitcroft military wives singing group/ choir (the label is disputed between Kate and Lisa) are being run through their scales and being split into altos and sopranos – while one specific member is left in their own group (the running joke being that they can’t sing, which somehow manages to be consistently amusing). However, there’s disagreement between Kate and Lisa on what should be sung. While Kate would prefer hymns such as Morning Has Broken it seems that Lisa and the choir would rather sing The Human League. Throughout the film the pair disagree on what the aim of the choir is. Are they singing for themselves or other people? Is the purpose to entertain or create something more personal? It’s such feuds that begin to bring in the elements of drama that make the film the dramedy that it is.
Mix in the fear of the wives as they struggle to keep contact with their partners, “every time the phone rings, every time the bell goes. I mean, how do you cope” asks particularly young wife, married just before her husband went off to fight so that she was next-of-kin, Sarah (Amy James-Kelly). The worries of the other wives aren’t shown widely, apart from in group scenes of sympathy and comfort, the main focuses are certainly Kate and Lisa. Both of whom have their own struggles. Kate lost her son Jamie in the last tour and is still recovering, watching shopping channels on her laptop and buying any items she sees, from glass kettles to inflatable mattresses that can hold large amounts of weight. Meanwhile Lisa is struggling to properly connect with her daughter (India Ria Amarteifio).
For the large part Military Wives is very by-the-numbers. It’s fairly safe and middle-of-the-road. You see the trailer and what you see there is pretty much what you get with the film, and possibly a slight bit more. The “feel good” British underdog story. But, the most important thing is, is works. The humour does work, with a number of good chuckles scattered throughout, and the drama while relatively mild, keeping it to the 12 rating that the film has, does have some effect. When it all comes together everything manages to make for a perfectly fine, and rather enjoyable film. It’s just about what you expect it to be and in some ways it’s better for that being the case. Nothing feels overblown, and the film just about avoids being syrupy and overly-sentimental. The emotion is certainly there and while it isn’t exactly anything to open the tear-ducts of the audience there’s certainly a mild hit during one or two scenes. And, of course, when you throw in the humour the film is certainly an enjoyable one.
There’s a fair deal to like about Military Wives. It’s certainly what you expect it to be, but for that you get a fair deal of humour and some decently placed drama. The film is certainly not brilliant, but it is a good enough watch before the mass big-budget blockbusters flood the multiplexes this summer. And, it is a worthwhile watch made with heart and humour; something which is held closely by the film and comes across in its tone and all-round feel. Yes, it might be fairly by-the-books and simplistic, but that’s what brings in what many have described as the feel good tone. And for what it is Military Wives is in tune enough to be an enjoyable enough time with an audience at the cinema.
Led by some good performances and a good communal spirit Military Wives works because its finely tuned heart shows itself to be in the right place. Coming through in the humour and hints of emotion that are displayed from start to finish.
Cert – 15, Run-time – 1 hour 50 minutes, Director – Richard Stanley
When a mysterious object crashes into the garden of a family’s newly moved into countryside home the land and wildlife in the area begins to mutate
Back in 2018 the world said that Nicolas Cage couldn’t possibly get more Nicolas Cage (although we are yet to see The Unbearable Weight Of Massive Talent) when it witnessed the utter blood-soaked madness of whatever Mandy was, word’s can’t really properly describe it. And in many ways that’s the truth. So, where does Cage go after Mandy, via one or two other roles and voicing superheros in the likes of Teen Titans Go! To The Movies and Spider-Man: Into The Spider-verse? To an adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft novel, of course!
The mad state of cosmic horror that this adaptation of Color Out Of Space almost seems to have been perfectly tailored for Cage to act as he wishes, with it still fitting in with the tone of the piece. As the ground around the quiet countryside farm of the Gardner family begins to mutate and change into an almost unnerving shade of purple everything around them, including themselves, begins to become more absurd, but more importantly fearful.
One of the interesting things about Richard Stanley and Scarlett Amaris’ screenplay, and Stanley’s direction, is that it guides the viewers through various stages over the course of the film’s acts. Instead of having everything fly off the walls in the first 20 minutes there’s a gradual build-up to the film. Dwelling on the elements of cosmic horror and the slow release of the increasing effects that the crash-landed object from space are revealed there’s a sparing feeling to the film. Something which adds to the tension and actual horror that the piece holds. This is something that at times is genuinely unnerving; especially when it comes to the lingering elements of body horror, which also never feel too much, or too abrupt. There’s a specific point that the writers and director guide the audience to throughout the film where they flick the switch and all hell breaks loose. However, there’s build-up to this point. The fact that the viewer is taken to this point helps to push the context and make it enjoyable instead of just feeling as if it’s there for the sake of having everything go insane and, as some might say, ‘pure Nicolas Cage’.
One of the ways in which this is done is by the changes in the characters. The central family who are having their lives and newly moved into home invaded begin to show two different personality types. Their normal ones, scared at the effects that the titular colour is having on them with its attack, and the one that the colour almost seems to force upon them. A harsh, angered personality, or sometimes a silent, secluded one in constant pain. As the characters begin to flick between the two personalities the conflicting behaviours lead to an increase in tension. Any personality could appear at any moment, especially with Cage’s character, who the impact is the strongest, yet most delayed, on.
When mixed with Steve Annis’ cinematography and the visual effects, showing bright purple’s and violet’s in somehow the darkest of shades, leading to a sense of mistrust and further unease. The feeling that everything isn’t right is known when this strange and mysterious object lands in the front yard of this out-of-the-way cabin. However, the idea is established when such colour schemes and ideas are played with. The visual style of the film while simple is undoubtedly effective and brings the viewer further into the film. Further into the fear and entertainment factors and simply taking them along for the ride, and it’s very much this guidance, pacing and the gradual nature of the film that make it as enjoyable, entertaining and even tense and scary as it is.
In fact Color Out Of Space may be one of the most welcome surprises of the year with just how good it is. It’s easy to just pass off a Nicolas Cage film with this kind of look – at least in the final 20 minutes, when the madness is certainly deserved and warranted – as something tacky and almost Direct-To-DVD. It’s the type of thing he seems to have become associated with. However, as the actor seems to be entering into a new stage of his career, after what we saw in Mandy, and his much discussed future slate of films (including his potential franchise return in National Treasure 3), it’s certainly time that we again reassessed our view of him. There’s a lot to like about Color Out Of Space, and indeed Cage’s performance, which isn’t to distract from the rest of the cast, which includes Joely Richardson and even Tommy Chong, who all also put in a good turn. It’s well-paced, tense, well-told and knows how to build up to the point when it flicks the switch and exactly what to do when it finally does. Not to mention the fact that it has a genuine fear factor with a number of scary and highly unnerving moments.
Director Richard Stanley, along with co-writer Scarlett Amaris, creates a finely paced cosmic horror that once it finally flicks the switch it feels warranted, deserved and a step-up from the already tense and unnerving nature of the rest of the filmwhich even manages to hold a somewhat unsettling colour palette.