Tag Archives: Experimental

SLAMDANCE FILM FESTIVAL: THE BIG SHORTS COMPENDIUM (2025)

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

Short films are a delight for me—whether they be hit-and-runs from artists I may not stumble across ever again, or “business cards” for up-and-coming feature film directors. Today we dive into a one-and-a-half-feature to explore this year’s animation showcase and a few of the experimental selections from SlamDance 2025.

CARTOON CORNER:

MIMT (dir. ; 4 min.)— I swear I’ve seen this animator’s work before. Simple computer graphics (think Glory Days of MS Paint), whose basic nature allow for innumerable flights of form. I recently adopted a cat who seems to be part snake—thanks to Ted Wiggin, I can visualize how that could happen.

Gemini (dir. Jamie Griffiths; 7 min.)— Back in ’82, the Alan Parsons Project used this title and created a wistful, float-y musing. There’s a bit of that sensation in Griffiths’ cartoon here, with its shapes, spirals, and a double cat who has a penchant for pranking its owner in a subtle manner. We all have a reflection.

mnemonic (dir. Raffaele Gans-Pfister; 6 min.)— Described in the digital program as “Building thinks thought, has realization. Landscape in translation.” Can’t say I can improve on that. The animation’s means for this nebulous plot are mesmerizing clay works complemented by pen-scratch 2D representations. Not sure what I saw, but it was gratifying to see it.

‘Never Fall In Love’ (dir. Lucy Sao Wa Lao, Angela En-Yu Lao; 6 min.)— Hate to hate on things, so I’ll just say that this was the only short among the dozen which disappointed. Dog and cat, doomed romance, with one interesting thing barely emerging from the back-ground: what’s up with the merged and split flags? I’m sure I’m missing some political connotations.

Tunnel Wandering (dir. Li Zehao; 10 min.)— Blue ink, or blue water-color? …Not to mention that Windows® dungeon screen-saver interlude. I may never find out what this (mostly) first-person journey is about, but at least I’ll have good company: the character wandering these tunnels doesn’t guess the right answer, either, and never gets past the giant naked woman.

Croûte-mousse (dir. Badminton Plus; 4 min.)— Copyright? On this thing? You better bet your bottom dollar that Badminton Plus ain’t having none of that. Day-Glo tinted TV samplings skitter along, all bound by Day-Glo frames. I believe the title might translate into “bread pudding”, but considering what B-Plus is laying down, most bets are off.

Weirdest!Birth Controlled (dir. Isabela Fraga-Abaza; 5 min.)— Following the school of ugly imagery, this slice of feminist commentary hits the mark—no surprise seeing as the protagonist is a dead-eye shot in the great game show of sex, birthing, and oblique oppression. Violent and graphic, and Continue reading SLAMDANCE FILM FESTIVAL: THE BIG SHORTS COMPENDIUM (2025)

CAPSULE: ED AND ROOSTER’S GREAT ADVENTURE (2025)

AKA Ed and Rooster’s Big Adventure

366 Weird Movies may earn commissions from purchases made through product links.

DIRECTED BY: Lucy Fazely

FEATURING: Voice of Bryan Crespo

PLOT: Two seagulls discover a laptop containing a spell that allows them to access alternate realities.

Still from ed and rooster's great adventure (2025)

COMMENTS: Sometimes I wonder whether there is a point to reviewing movies that no one else will ever see. I’ve concluded that the value to the reader is the same as when they encounter any description of a thing they will never experience directly: they get to add one more item to their mental catalog of things of which they are aware. So, if you’ve read this far, your life has been enriched (although perhaps imperceptibly)  by your knowledge that Ed and Rooster’s Great Adventure exists.

Still reading? Then you are not content to simply know that a thing called Ed and Rooster’s Great Adventure exists, and wish to learn what it actually is. I applaud your curiosity. Ed and Rooster’s Great Adventure consists of footage of seagulls on the beach, with voice actors dubbing in fanciful and humorous conversations between the elder (Ed, with a faux British accent) and the younger (teenager Rooster, who’s slightly dumber than birdbrained Ed). The two feathered friends find a portal to alternate realities and get lost in a dimensional vortex, moving from a universe where they are suddenly avian Lotharios to one where humans have set up free feeders to one where gulls are completely unknown species, and so on. Usually the alternative reality seems immediately superior but then reveals some major flaw: e.g., in the world where the female gulls are all attracted to Ed and Rooster, Ed’s favorite snack, cheese puffs, do not exist. Therefore, the pair continually try to get back to their own universe, but instead end up in another slightly novel variant.

My goodness, you’re still here? Well, I’m guano drop some more knowledge to make you a certified expert on Ed and Rooster’s Great Adventure. The voiceovers can be mildly amusing, but hardly drip with wit (“wanna flock?,” an amorous female gull asks Ed). There are a lot of shots of seagulls pooping, and in fact pooping, or more precisely, the inability to do so, becomes a major plot point in the second new reality the pair visit. Unless you’re a fan of seagulls pooping, though, the film is visually dull—the same local birds pooping on the same local beaches for over an hour. Perhaps bird-watching hobbyists would find it tolerable. There are a few moments of Adobe After Effects-style visuals—the green spiral inter-dimensional portals, animated flapping bird silhouettes, a snapshot of a child that gets sucked into a portal—which are tossed out with an impish disregard for realism. In the best effect, they simply reverse the film to show fish and shrimp shooting out of a bird feeder; it’s completely goofy, in the best sense of the term. But overall, the entirety of Ed and Rooster’s Great Adventure is like a feature film version of a 20-watch YouTube that never showed up in your feed. The movie is available for rental on YouTube or Google Play, but the filmmakers will probably never make back the $50 they spent on it. That’s OK; you get the feeling that getting rich is not the motivation for the team behind Ed and Rooster’s Great Adventure. They wanted to have a fun time making a cheap movie, and they did so. And now you know they did it.

WHAT THE CRITICS SAY:

No reviews other than this one currently exist