Directed By Robert Zemeckis
Starring – Anne Hathaway, Octavia Spencer, Stanley Tucci
The Plot – Reimagining Roald Dahl’s beloved story for a modern audience, Robert Zemeckis’s film tells the darkly humorous and heartwarming tale of a young orphaned boy (Jahzir Bruno) who, in late 1967, goes to live with his loving Grandma (Spencer) in the rural Alabama town of Demopolis. As the boy and his grandmother encounter some deceptively glamorous but thoroughly diabolical witches, she wisely whisks him away to a seaside resort. Regrettably, they arrive at precisely the same time that the world’s Grand High Witch (Hathaway) has gathered her fellow cronies from around the globe-undercover-to carry out her nefarious plans.
Rated PG for scary images/moments, adult language and thematic elements
POSITIVES
– Dedicated performances. Even if the direction for the characterization is a bit hokey and cartoonish at times, the commitment by these top shelf performers giving the film the kind of respect that it deserves is honorable, especially in the case of Hathaway. Sporting a questionable accent and a barrage of special effects that condemn her likeness, Anne invests all of her energy and charm into the role, and has the time of her life in doing so, giving us an evil side to the actress that we nor she gets to often capitalize on. Likewise is Octavia Spencer’s role as Grandma, where she combines a fine helping of warmth and love to the role that colorfully exudes the kind of compassion and backbone that is front-and-center on display in the movie’s pivotal relationship. Finally, Stanley Tucci makes the most of his minimal work with a vibrancy for professionalism that transforms him before our very eyes. It’s not a visual transformation, but rather a personality one, allowing Stanley immersive access towards a hotel manager, full of anxieties and exuberance, which he balances delightfully.
– Expert direction. There are a few areas in the creator’s hands that I feel would be better accentuated with someone like Tim Burton at the helm, but if Zemeckis knows one thing, it’s where to point the camera, and it’s a charm that he vibrantly illustrates through the lens of imagination. Because the computer generated characters are inserted post-production, Robert is basically the painter tasked with constructing a series of thrilling sequences and energetic movements, and it’s his on-the-ground versatility that is most impressive through chases that visually capture the pulse of the engagement without distorting the caption. There are no cheap camera tricks like shaky-cam, nor is there ever a shot that drowns on too long or hindered too shortly. It’s a finely tuned presence from beyond the lens that always keeps us on the toes of these furry miniature protagonists, and gives the movie a flexing for fun that sells the speed and shape of these mice for childlike wonderment.
– Strong production values. I’m thankful that the movie didn’t focus as heavily on visual style through the gimmick of its late 60’s timestamp, and instead sold flare through a series of artistic choices that proved advantageous for the kind of big screen feel that HBO Plus is currently attaining. First is the plush profile of some exceptional costume designs, which seem accommodating in color coordination when played against the backdrops of the hotel with their own internal beauty. The set designs themselves are full of upper class ideals, but never sacrifice the personality of their geographical setting despite such a distinguishing. For instance, there are many southern quirks and collectibles scattered throughout the room’s decor that transports us distinctly to Alabama, and dares us to stay a while longer with a pause button that conveniently feeds to visual navigation. It brings a beauty of artistic integrity that was most noticeably missing from its predecessor, offering intoxicating volume to a destination so vividly illustrated in documentation.
– Storied first act. This was evidently the biggest difference for me between films, and one that set a lot in motion with regards to its characters and their fully realized backstories. It takes its time introducing us to both Grandmother and Grandson, and connecting them in a way that instills self-importance when seen through the eyes of each of them. With the latter, that begins with an air of unfortunate tragedy, but through the lens of a relationship with a woman tasked with healing his ailing soul, you outline character chemistry that you can’t help but invest in. In addition to this, the movie’s opening half hour takes its time setting the precedent leading up to the hotel, alluding at past instances and moments of regret that fully flesh out Grandma in a way that feels equal to the youthful protagonist she dons the screen with. Each of them feel like pivotal roles to the forefront of the narrative, and connect most effectively to its literary companion, which is also top heavy on an introductory level.
– Musical accompaniment. This is seen in both soundtrack and musical score from legendary composer Alan Silvestri, who himself imbeds a lingering musical score that is every bit continuously conscious as the characters that constantly move in and out of frame at any given moment. There’s nothing overwhelming or on-the-nose about the tones he conjures up, instead settling for abstraction in the ever-changing atmosphere of the hotel lobby and inter-connecting rooms. The volume in the mixing of which feels resounding despite it never overtaking or overselling what is transpiring in frame, and the versatility and spontaneity of such keeps each instrument from ever feeling derivative of its previous use. On top of this, there’s a satisfying eclectic blend of some of Motown’s finest hits being incorporated at the helm of some spiritual heeling for our two protagonists. Tracks like “I’ll Be There” by Four Tops, “Sittin on the Dock of the Bay” by Otis Redding, and “We Are Family” by Samantha Jade are just a few of the familiar tracks that grace these scenes of sentimentality, and offer a spirited albeit timely-obvious collection of music that tickles our earbuds.
NEGATIVES
– Clunky dialogue. Can a mainstream movie be made anymore without a conversation trying to zero in on a series of topics and cliff notes that will inevitably factor in somewhere down the line? It’s a rhetorical question, because “The Witches” is the latest in this growing tradition, complete with a series of long-winded diatribes that conveniently stitch all of the answers together despite it bringing forth no shortage of logical problems the longer you think about it. Nothing feels naturally attained, nor does the highlighted foreshadowing ever diminish from the level of obviousness that suffocates the believability quality that continuously eludes itself from the foreground of the picture, and even as the movie progresses, the answers become easier, granting us only moments of temporary uncertainty that is nothing more than minor speedbumps.
– Lifeless special effects. There’s a cheesy and underwhelming quality to the animal likenesses in the film that feel ten years outdated even by mediocre quality of contemporary times. The illustrations of these creatures is laughably vague and lacking of detail that makes them look anything but similar to mice. Likewise, the movements of these characters feel stilted with the turning of the camera, giving the sequence an imbalance between frame rates that was most recently captured and done worse in this summer’s disappointing “Mulan”. The worst offense of all, however, is the work done on the witches, particularly the traits on Anne Hathaway’s character, which are laughable at best. They stretch her face with the kind of texture and influence of Silly Putty, and are mere disappointments of the outstanding Make-up and prosthetics work from Christine Beveridge and Nigel Booth from the original film that can’t even be mentioned in the same breath to a film thirty years later and with all of the technological advances in the world.
– Tonally inferior. This is my biggest problem in differences between the two films, because as to where the enveloping ominous atmosphere of the 1990 movie preserved an ever-growing air of uncertainty to the protagonists and their overwhelmingly outnumbered circumstance, the overtly comedic tone here insults child audiences with a series of gags and one-liners that never has time to subscribe to vulnerability. The comedic material itself checks itself through a greatest hits checklist of low-hanging fruit, complete with wacky sound mixing and bodily flatulence that overstays its welcome forty minutes into the film, ultimately underscoring the desired direction that it sets for itself but isn’t strong enough to follow through on. There isn’t even an attempt at making this a challenging and edgy sit for childlike audiences in the same vein as its literary and cinematic predecessors, condemning the respect in equality that Dahl had for his youthful readers by even adding optimism to the story’s gloomy epilogue.
– Over the top. Believe me when I say there isn’t a shred of subtlety or nuance anywhere throughout the entirety of this 99 minute picture. The worse of witch (See what I did there?) seen through some choices with the antagonists and setting that had me groaning frequently. As to where Anjelica Houston’s grand witch was every bit believable as a real living, breathing person among society, there’s nothing about Hathaway’s that would even be confused for a human in real life. Her eyes are twice the size of normal humans, her three fingers look like talons for snatching, and her accent hocks a loogie every time she gets angry. This pales in comparison to the on-the-nose logic within the hotel that made me groan with the kind of displeasure only similar to a McDonald’s experience. The Grandmother and Grandson’s room number is 766, and the grand witch’s room is directly under theirs, so what would that make her room number? I won’t say it, because the movie does around ten to twelve times. Instead, I will just sit here amazed at the line that follows after they realize such, where Spencer says “We have an evil witch living underneath our noses this whole time?”. Like I said, subtlety isn’t this movie’s forte.
– Problematic narration. We are treated to the pleasure of having Chris Rock offer narration at certain points in the film, an aspect that creates more issues with the story the longer you think about it. Having him narrate post-story is especially an issue, considering it gives away that this boy lived, cementing this film’s place in predictability, but I digress. The bigger problem is that his mature tones don’t add up to the logic dispersed in the film’s final ten minutes, where Grandma tells Grandson (Like in the previous film) that he will only like three times the three years that mice are known to live. First of all, mice live longer than this, but the real issue is that giving this 7-8 year old boy another nine years only puts him at 17 at best, and probably not in-sync with what you think a teenager sounds like at this age. On top of this, the narration itself is pointless, both in what little it reveals about what we’re visually seeing, and its gimmick on the film. This is even established by the film itself when you consider after the first act Rock disappears until the film’s closing moments, but I actually give it credit for that because otherwise I would be subjected to him echoing a sad feeling that a pouty look simply can’t convey.
My Grade: 5/10 or D
Definitely can’t say that I’ve heard of this one. Originally, I was intrigued when you said that it was directed by Robert Zemeckis and was starring such a terrific cast. However, the longer I reader this, the less and less it sounded appealing. You’re description on the dialogue alone has kind of put me off the whole idea of watching. Sounds like a pretty lukewarm movie in the middle of the road which I honestly find to be the worst kind of movies. Not good enough to recommend and not bad enough to not recommend. Just in some mediocre limbo that isn’t the most fun to review. Great job though!
That breaks my heart. I was so hoping that this would be a good movie.