Skip to main content

Grandma, please get off the floor, and put me on the coffee table.

The Witches

(SPOILERS) The rough reception of lost-his-way Robert Zemeckis’ utterly redundant remake of The Witches is richly deserved. It’s as lacking in reason-to-be and filmmaking passion as the majority of his work during the past couple of decades. Unless, by reason-to-be, one means his box of effects tricks, from feverish mocap nightmares – The Polar Express, Beowulf, A Christmas Carol – to a tepid return to live action with as many “seamless” CG augmentations as possible (Flight, The Walk, Allied, Welcome to Marwen). Few now seem interested in his movies, which rather reflects his own visible enthusiasm. The Witches was previously made – quite splendidly – by Nicolas Roeg in 1990, and in every respect – direction, performances, effects, atmosphere – this version is grossly inferior.

It isn’t only Zemeckis who must take the blame this time. Sure, he’s the one who decided a retake on the Roald Dahl tale needed really obvious – and ill-judged – shots designed for the 3D viewing experience (so borderline risible when the picture premieres on HBO or Sky). But it was greedy Guillermo del Toro, like a fat boy let loose in a sweet shop, who initiated the project (then planned for animation). He and fellow countryman cohort Alfonso Cuarón share producing credits (Zemeckis, del Toro and Kenya Barris co-wrote the screenplay. The latter’s underwhelming recent work includes Shaft and Coming 2 America but allows cynical Warner to claim African-American authenticity).

What did they think they could do that would improve on Roeg’s film? Better creature/witch designs? Well, that didn’t work. The CGI reduxes of the Henson workshop witch prosthetics are lousy, with Fright Night meets Venom meets Joker mouths and long goofy arms/deformed hands and feet. The latter got the picture in hot water for “perpetuating bias against individuals with ectrodatyly and other limb differences”. Cue gushing apologies from filmmakers who had already laboriously relocated the story to Alabama, complete with black protagonists, in the aid of that all-important progressive cred (see Barris above). You have to laugh.

The Witches is limp, lifeless. Octavia Spencer does her best as the Grandmother, the only performer here escaping with any credibility intact. Jahzir Kadeem Bruno, fresh from stinking up the already whiffy The Christmas Chronicles 2, evidences that, no matter how much someone may wish to make him the next big thing child actor, it ain’t gonna happen. Chris Rock is even worse as his older mouse narrator self (as per the source material, Bruno is transformed into a rodent). His cheerfully irreverent delivery sounds very much like a desperate attempt to stir up a connective pulse across an inert and indifferent movie, and it fails abysmally.

Anne Hathaway is godawful as the Grand High Witch, entirely devoid of the elegance, comic timing and vital fear factor Angelica Huston brought to the part (Huston gets the mainstream notices for Morticia Adams, but this was her truly great family movie role). For once, I can get behind the Razzies in their “unkind” singling out of Hathaway. Then there’s Stanley Tucci. The one thing I’ve been able to say for Tucci is that, no matter the movie, he’s never boring and is often a highlight when it comes to lesser material. Not here, he’s utterly forgettable in the Rowan Atkinson hotel manager part. Codie-Lei Eastick is a cut and paste of the previous Bruno (the fat English boy who is also mouse-ified), making the unflattering comparisons with Roeg’s version the more acute. For some reason – I expect someone told them they needed more female characters – Daisy is revealed to have been a human girl until recently. A human girl voiced by 52-year-old Kristin Chenoweth. Which is an odd choice. Also in the cast is Josette Simon, once an acting legend for her performance as Dayna in Blake’s 7 but now boasting a keen agent (what with this, Wonder Woman and Detective Pikachu).

Since the performances can’t bolster the business, all that’s left is Zemeckis’ visual acumen, and it’s in conspicuously short supply. He’s using every opportunity he can to avoid the tangible. Hotel veranda overlooking a beach? CGI the thing in. Cat? CGI. Snake? Bad CGI. Mice and rats? CGI and CGI.

Roeg knew to relish the witches preying on kids, but in this new version, when the antagonists’ rallying cry is “How will I squish this child?” you wonder if it might not rather be a tacit exposé of jab man Bill’s chum Maria Abramovitch. Zemeckis has a fairly low-key profile with regards to scandalous or concealed skeleton activities, but he is known to fund Family Planning (read eugenics) and has, of course, worked several times with Guantanamo Hanks (as well as making incest-promoting Back to the Future. And Who Framed Roger Rabbit, complete with Jessica Rabbit’s snatch. At least, until Disney removed it, along with Daryl Hannah’s buttocks).

Several points of plot order are worth noting. Grandmother informs her grandson “The man who built the hotel was a numerologist”, but little more is made of this aside from singling out room numbers 766 and 666. As if as an apologia, she also advises that “Witches aren’t really women at all. They’re demons in female shape”. This is, of course, a transparent attempt to retreat from the essential misogyny of Dahl’s work(s). It isn’t really washing, though. The rather grim possible/likely shortened life span of mouse boy appears to have been offset by the unnecessary coda, since he must be at least eighteen. Or maybe not, since he is now looking undeniably elderly.

Other failed remakes come to mind in the wake of The Witches, from the Coen Brothers’ Ladykillers to Tim Burton’s also utterly lifeless Dumbo. The strangest thing is how Zemeckis has continued working during the last decade when only Flight could be regarded as a hit, and even then, a modest one. Careers have been stranded on less (Barry Levinson, for example). Somehow, Zemeckis just keeps barrelling along, currently filming a Pinocchio with Guantanamo Hanks – or his brother – (as Geppetto), the most horrendously flagrant role he’s taken since, well… Fred Rogers. Then he has The King with Dwayne Johnson (also a popular go-to for adreno detectives). The Witches stinks, so Zemeckis won’t have a high bar to make either of those better.

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.