The Witches (2020) review (HBO Max)

 

When it comes to some of the most prominent authors in literary history, one whose work has consistently stood the test of time is Roald Dahl. From 1942 up until his death in 1990, Dahl was responsible for penning a whole bunch of classics such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, and Matilda. To date, his various novels and short stories have sold over 250 million copies worldwide and are widely touted for their creative imagery and their unabashed knack for dark humor to contrast with their primarily whimsical nature. Many of his works have been adapted to the big screen over the years although it is worth noting that, when he was alive, Dahl was usually quite critical about them for the various changes that were made to his stories. This included the last adaptation that was released before his death, 1990’s The Witches, which was directed by Nicolas Roeg and notably produced by none other than Jim Henson. Dahl, however, was not too pleased with this adaptation of his 1983 novel, namely due to its drastically different ending. Nevertheless, the film was well-received by critics and while it wasn’t exactly a box-office hit, it has since gone on to become a cult classic of its time. But now there’s a new adaptation of The Witches upon us, and just like the 1990 film, this one is star-studded on both sides of the camera. For starters, the cast is headlined by a pair of Oscar winners in Anne Hathaway and Octavia Spencer. And as for the behind-the-scenes crew, the film serves as the latest outing from director Robert Zemeckis, AKA the man who’s given us films like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump, and this reviewer’s favorite film of all-time, Back to the Future. However, Zemeckis isn’t the only big-name filmmaker attached to this project as it was originally proposed as a stop-motion film directed by Guillermo Del Toro, who instead serves as a producer alongside his good friend Alfonso Cuaron while also being one of the credited screenwriters alongside Zemeckis and Black-ish creator Kenya Barris. And while it may be far from being the best project that any of these men have ever worked on, it still manages to be a decently charming family flick that delivers a solid new take on Roald Dahl’s classic story.

In 1968, a young boy (Jahzir Kadeem Bruno) loses both of his parents in a car crash. He’s then sent to live with his grandmother (Octavia Spencer) in Alabama, and while it does take a while, she does help him start to overcome his grief. However, their idyllic lifestyle is soon threatened when the young boy has his first encounter with a witch. And since his grandmother is quite familiar with witches after seeing one when she was a child, she tells him everything that he needs to know about them; namely, that witches are really demonic creatures and are notorious for hating children and doing anything they can to get rid of them. Thus, to avoid any further witch-based encounters, the young boy and his grandmother promptly decide to take a vacation and stay at a prestigious hotel. Unfortunately, they end up arriving at the exact same time as a whole group of witches led by the most powerful witch in the world, the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway). The young boy ends up eavesdropping on their meeting, where the Grand High Witch reveals her newest scheme to get rid of all the children in the world by using a special potion to turn them into mice. And to make matters worse, the young boy is then discovered by the Grand High Witch, who immediately uses her potion to turn him into a mouse. Now stuck in mouse form, the young boy crosses paths with two other kids that were recently turned into mice, food-loving Bruno (Codie-Lei Eastick) and a girl named Mary (voiced by Kristin Chenoweth), who is revealed to be the mouse that the young boy had been keeping as a pet for the past few months. With both their help and his grandmother’s, the young boy now finds himself in a time-sensitive situation as he and his friends work to stop the Grand High Witch’s sinister plan before anyone else ends up suffering the same fate as them.

While it may be easy to simply call this film a ‘remake’ of its 1990 counterpart, this new version of The Witches does manage to avoid being a straight-forward retelling of its classic story, whether it’s by having African-American protagonists or revealing that the kid’s pet mouse was a transformed kid as well. Plus, if there’s one advantage that this film has over the previous film, it’s that its ending is a lot more faithful to the book since, as noted earlier, Dahl took significant issue with the 1990 film for having a more traditional ‘happy ending’. Granted, the changes that this film makes does mean that it takes a lot more liberties with its source material than even the 1990 film did, but at the very least, this isn’t a case like Artemis Fowl where the changes that were made significantly alter the story beyond recognition. At the end of the day, most of these changes are simply from a cosmetic standpoint, and for the most part, the film does an excellent job of maintaining Roald Dahl’s whimsical style that delivers a good-natured adventure where the kids are the heroes but is still allowed to have the delightfully twisted dark humor that Dahl was well-known for. And while I’m aware that the film has gotten some criticism for supposedly being ‘too scary for children’, I’d argue that it’s relatively tame compared to all the other family-friendly films over the years that have gained notoriety for their darker moments (and yes, this includes the 1990 adaptation of The Witches). All this makes up for the fact that the film ends up feeling like a routine affair for the filmmakers who are attached to it, especially Robert Zemeckis. It’s not that the film is ‘bad’ or anything since, if Zemeckis’ past work wasn’t enough of an indication, he’s not that kind of director. It’s just that, like what happened when Tim Burton made his remake of Planet of the Apes in 2001, this is one of those instances where, if you didn’t know that this was directed by the guy who made Back to the Future, you probably wouldn’t have figured that out until the credits because it could’ve been done by anybody.

For many people, one of the best aspects of the 1990 film was Angelica Huston’s standout turn as the Grand High Witch. But while that may have been an undeniably tough act to follow, Anne Hathaway proves that she’s more than capable of taking on that daunting task. With an over-exaggerated accent that’s matched by an equally over-the-top performance, Hathaway is clearly having a lot of fun as the main antagonist. And sure, it’s completely understandable if some may find her performance to be a bit too campy at times, but at the end of the day, she’s still one of the best parts of this film. This strong performance from Hathaway is then perfectly matched by Octavia Spencer’s equally terrific turn as the main protagonist’s grandmother. Spencer has always been well-known for playing characters like this who are very much good-natured protagonists but can still dish out some tough love when necessary, usually through some delightfully spunky snark. And while he’s not in the film too much, we also get the always-reliable Stanley Tucci as the manager of the hotel that all the main characters end up at who mostly spends his time trying to deal with the eccentric gestures of the Grand High Witch. Finally, to close out the main cast, we have newcomer Jahzir Kadeem Bruno as the main protagonist who, just like in the original novel (and not the 1990 film where he was named Luke), is unnamed. He is credited as ‘Hero Boy’, however, which is rather ironic because that makes him the second main character in a Robert Zemeckis film to be called that since that’s also what the main protagonist of The Polar Express was credited as. Nevertheless, while this may only be his first leading role in a film (that and his character is a mouse for half of it), Bruno instantly makes a strong first impression with some solid charisma for his age.

While it’s admittedly been a while since I’ve done so, I did read The Witches when I was younger. It was one of many Roald Dahl books that I read growing up alongside other classics such as Matilda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. However, you may be surprised to learn that I never watched its 1990 film adaptation. Simply put, it was just one of those films that was never on my radar back then. As such, it goes without saying that I don’t have the kind of connection to it that many others from my generation have, which has clearly had a major influence on folks’ thoughts towards this new adaptation. I mean, if the usual reception towards Disney’s recent string of live-action remakes wasn’t enough of an indication, folks are always a lot stricter when it comes to remakes. And yet, from the perspective of someone who hasn’t seen the 1990 adaptation of The Witches, I’d argue that this new version of the story is a genuinely harmless affair. It avoids being a direct carbon copy of its predecessor and even manages to deliver a more faithful take on the novel’s ending… even if the changes that it makes everywhere else are more prominent than those from the 1990 film. Really, at the end of the day, the worst thing that I can say about this film is that it’s arguably the most by-the-numbers feature that Robert Zemeckis has ever directed. To be fair, his direction is solid as always, but at the same time, I will admit that I’m curious about how this film would’ve turned out had it been the Guillermo Del Toro-directed stop-motion film that it was originally planned to be. Ultimately, though, the film does manage to be a nice showcase of Roald Dahl’s brilliant storytelling and could very well serve as a gateway for younger generations to experience the rest of his work.

Rating: 3.5/5

Beauty and the Beast (2017) review

Disney’s been on a roll as of late with their live-action reimaginings of their classic animated films. Granted, this current trend of theirs isn't going over well with ‘everybody’, as I pointed out last time, but, for the most part, films like Cinderella and The Jungle Book have been major successes on both a critical and commercial level instead of just on a commercial one as was initially the case with these films. And for their latest endeavor on this front, Disney revives one of its most beloved stories for a new generation; Beauty and the Beast. The studio’s original animated take on the classic fairytale of the same name from 1756 was the second smash hit of the ‘Disney Renaissance’ era when it was released in 1991. In fact, it was so universally adored that it ended up being the first animated film ever to be nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, a feat that has only been accomplished 2 other times since then by, fittingly enough, a pair of Pixar films; 2009’s Up and 2010’s Toy Story 3, which, of course, were released under the Disney banner. So, yeah, one could say that there was a lot of pressure on this new take on the ‘Tale as Old as Time’, directed by Bill Condon, who's no stranger to musicals having written the screenplay for 2002’s Best Picture winner, Chicago (not to mention directing 2006’s Dreamgirls, which won 2 Oscars), and features an all-star ensemble cast. After all, we’re talking about one of the most famous Disney stories of all time, meaning that this new film has a hell of a lot to live up to. Thankfully, Condon does do justice to this beloved masterpiece of a story with a highly enjoyable new take on Beauty and the Beast that respects its predecessor without being a direct carbon copy of it.

In a quaint little town in France, a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson) is a complete mystery to the rest of the people living there. Never once conforming to the expectations that life tries to set upon her, Belle spends most of her days reading, inventing things, and ignoring the advances of the town’s popular but egotistical local hunter, Gaston (Luke Evans), while also hoping to someday leave the confines of her ‘poor, provincial’ town. That day ends up coming sooner than anticipated when she goes to rescue her father Maurice (Kevin Kline), who had been taken prisoner by a monstrous Beast (Dan Stevens) that resides within a forgotten castle not far from town. To save her father, Belle ends up taking his place as the Beast’s prisoner. But, soon after, she begins to learn the big secret behind the castle and, more importantly, its mysterious owner. As it turns out, years ago, the Beast was a selfish and vain human prince who was cursed by an Enchantress after he had rejected her pleas for shelter. Turning him into a Beast, as well as turning his servants into enchanted household objects, she puts the Prince under the pressure of having to find true love in time before the last petal of the red rose that she initially offered him falls. And, thus, as Belle begins to become more and more accepted by the Beast and his servants, she does begin to fall in love with him, which soon causes problems once Gaston learns of the situation.

Now, admittedly, as far as Disney’s remakes go, this is more like Cinderella than The Jungle Book. By that, I mean that you shouldn't go into this expecting a lot of differences between this new version and the original. It's the same exact story with the same primary plot points. So, with that said, I know what some of you will inevitably say; “Why the hell remake a masterpiece then?” But I'm going to ignore that debate for now because, to me, it all comes down to execution, and I'm pleased to say that this film is very well-made in every possible way. Sure, it's still the same story as the original but I'd say that there are just enough new elements in here, as minor as some may be, that help differentiate it from the original (e.g. a new plotline that reveals why Maurice and Belle stayed in their provincial town for all these years). Visually, this film is a top contender for next year’s Oscar for Best Visual Effects, Production Design, and basically every other major technical award at that ceremony. Yes, a lot of the visuals in this are CG but they are done excellently. And as for the songs, well, what more needs to be said about them? They're the classic songs written by Alan Menken, Howard Ashman, and Tim Rice and are all handled brilliantly in live-action. You'll be tapping your foot along to the beat of ‘Gaston’, marvel at the grandeur of ‘Be Our Guest’, and awe at the beauty (no pun intended) of the title song, ‘Beauty and the Beast’. There's also some great new songs as well, including the sweet recurring melody ‘How Does a Moment Last Forever’, which is sung three times in the film (this includes the end-credits version sung by Celine Dion who, of course, sung the title song during the end credits of the animated film) and the Beast’s new big solo, ‘Evermore’.

One of the best things about the film, though, is its ensemble cast. Because, damn, does this film have one of the most impressive ensembles in recent history. Of course, it's all led by Emma Watson, who does a phenomenal job in the role of Belle. Simply put, she does justice to one of Disney’s most beloved heroines while also doing just enough to provide some nice little updates to the character here and there without ever going against everything that made her great in the first place. And I know that she’s gotten some flak for her vocal performance during the musical numbers but I thought she was fine in that department. Dan Stevens is also fantastic as the Beast, perfectly conveying everything that goes into the character's great redemption arc. As for the villains of the film, both Luke Evans and Josh Gad are clearly having a lot of fun in the roles of Gaston and LeFou, respectively. They ham it up in the best way possible, as Evans perfectly encapsulates our favorite manly but shallow villain while Gad brings new depth to the role of Gaston’s loyal lackey. Kevin Kline is great as well in the role of Maurice, as he portrays the character in a much more toned down manner compared to the original that fits very well with the new plotline that shows why he’s been so protective of Belle all this time. And of course, we can't forget about the Beast’s servants and man did they get a great cast for these iconic supporting roles; Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Plumette (Fifi in the original film), Audra McDonald as Madame de Garderobe the Wardrobe, and Stanley Tucci as new character Maestro Cadenza the Harpsichord.

And thus, Disney is now 4 for 4 with their recent live-action remakes. I mean, admittedly I don't think I can go as far as to say that it's the ‘best’ of these remakes but I can tell you one thing; it's a hell of a lot better than its current 71% score on Rotten Tomatoes suggests. Thankfully, that's still considered a ‘fresh’ rating but I have the feeling that some of the more negative reviews that the film has been getting have been a lot more stringent on comparisons between the two versions of this story. Like I said before, I can see why this is happening. Because this one is arguably the closest to its animated counterpart out of all the Disney remakes released to date, the word ‘unnecessary’ has undeniably been thrown around a lot. Maybe it is… but I don't care. I love the original (it is, after all, my 3^rd favorite Disney animated film of all-time) but I also love this new take on it, as its heart is very much in the right place. Plus, it is a genuinely well-made film in terms of its production design and visuals, not to mention having a fantastic ensemble cast to portray this story’s collection of iconic roles. Simply put, it's just an incredibly satisfying ‘feel good’ film and in this current time, this is exactly the kind of film that we need right now. Just ignore all the negativity in the world for a few hours (especially the negativity directed towards a certain element of this film; more on that in a bit) and enjoy a charming new take on a classic that we all know and love. On that note, to those who aren't big on these Disney remakes, don't worry, for the original animated film is still as perfect as it ever was. This new version is ultimately just like the remakes of Cinderella, The Jungle Book, and Pete’s Dragon; it's a nice complement to the original source.

Rating: 5/5!

(P.S. Well, I should probably address the big controversy surrounding this film because… oh boy. So, as many of you are aware, the film has been getting some flak recently from some audiences after an announcement that stated that it would have Disney’s first ‘exclusively gay’ moment involving the character of LeFou. Because of this, there's been quite a bit of heavy blowback from various parties; some countries banned the film unless cuts were made, a theater in Alabama refused to show it, and in Russia, it was given an adult rating. Yes, in Russia, this film is considered nearly as mature as, say, Logan. To all this, I say… this is one of the stupidest and most overblown controversies in recent memory. This moment that everyone keeps talking about is just one SMALL moment at the end of the film. Heck, if it hadn't been pointed out beforehand, I bet most of us wouldn't have even noticed it because the film’s quite subtle about it. Bottom line, Disney isn't trying to force an LGBT agenda down our throats; they're just trying to represent a wider audience. What the hell is wrong with that? Also, this backlash totally goes against the great positive messages of this film, namely, you know, accepting people for who they really are on the inside. So, yeah… this backlash is frigging stupid.)

Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) review

I’ve made it clear before that I’m a big fan of Michael Bay’s ‘Transformers’ films, and I’m also well-aware that by being a fan of these films, I am in the extreme minority when it comes to that opinion because there are quite a lot of people who really, really hate these movies and these people have certainly made an effort to express these opinions. In the past, I’ve defended these movies against their harshest critics and after re-watching them again, I still stand by my belief that they are honestly not as bad as everyone’s putting them out to be. I mean sure, I will concede that both ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ and ‘Dark of the Moon’ are not as good as the first of Bay’s ‘Transformers’ but at the end of the day they were still very entertaining popcorn flicks with some incredible visuals and action sequences even if it did come at the expense of the story and its characters. So now Bay is back for his fourth ‘Transformers’ film, ‘Age of Extinction’, which takes place a few years after the events of ‘Dark of the Moon’ and focuses on a new cast of main characters. But while this film is looking to reboot the franchise, one thing hasn’t changed… the critical reception. How bad are the reviews for this one, you ask? Well, at the time I’m writing this, it currently has a rating of 16% on Rotten Tomatoes, a worse score than the universally reviled ‘Revenge of the Fallen’ (Just let that sink in for a moment). And once again, I’m going to have to disagree with the majority of critics in regards to this latest entry in the series.

Five years after the Battle of Chicago, the friendly relationship between the people of Earth and the Transformers has since become very much strained. An elite government unit named Cemetery Wind, led by CIA Agent Harold Attinger (Kelsey Grammer), begins to hunt down all of the Transformers that are still hiding out on Earth, namely the Autobots despite the fact that they protected the planet, and its people, from the Decepticons. While all of this is going on, Cade Yeager (Mark Wahlberg), a struggling inventor from Texas, comes across an old truck and plans on stripping it for parts so that he can sell them in order to provide for him and his daughter Tessa (Nicola Peltz). However, Cade and Tessa soon find out that this truck is actually Autobot leader Optimus Prime (voiced by Peter Cullen), which results in Attinger and his team, as well as a Transformer bounty hunter named Lockdown (voiced by Mark Ryan), attempting to hunt them down. As Optimus rallies the remaining Autobots, with the help of Cade, Tessa, and her boyfriend Shane (Jack Reynor), the group looks to survive with the government hot on their tail. But they soon realize that Lockdown has a darker plan in store for Earth, one that threatens to wipe out both humans and Transformers at the same time.

Folks… let’s be honest here. Being that this is the fourth film in the ‘Transformers’ franchise, by now you should at least know what to expect from these films. A whole lot of action, mayhem, and visual effects paired with a story and characters that aren’t really up to par with everything else that’s in the film. Really, the amount of enjoyment you’ll have with this film all depends on whether or not you like these films in the first place and of course, I’m one of those who do like them. Now, for the record, I will agree on one of the main problems that many are having with this movie… it is way too damn long. That’s pretty ironic considering that I remember reading a report in which Michael Bay said that it would be the shortest of the films… and at the end of the day it ends up being the longest film in the series at 165 minutes. The thing about this movie is that it’s pretty much two movies in one. There’s a big action scene around the halfway point of the film in which the characters are on a big Transformer ship trying to save Optimus and Tessa. That could’ve been a good place to end this film and maybe Paramount could’ve done something along the lines of what Warner Bros. did with the Matrix sequels and have the second half of this film be its own thing and release it sometime later this year. But as is, the movie just keeps going and going until it stops. It still kept my interest, but it really could’ve benefitted from either a few cuts or, heck, even being a two-part film a la Harry Potter.

But even with that in mind, I still managed to enjoy this film for other reasons. The visuals of course are top notch as well as the action scenes (no one can do sequences like this quite like Bay). A lot of the action in the final act of the film is highlighted by the debuts of the Dinobots. They may not be in the movie that much but they easily end up being one of the best parts of the whole movie. I also give this movie credit for actually being a bit more legitimately serious in tone than the last three films. I mean keep in mind, we’re still talking about a Michael Bay directed ‘Transformers’ film so the idea of a serious tone can only go so far as there is still quite a bit of Bay’s ‘attempts’ at humor; some of it works, other times it doesn’t. I also liked that this film actually did focus on the Transformers a lot more than before. After seeing this film, I now realize that one of the issues with both of the previous two sequels was that because they were adding in a lot more Transformers than there were in the first film, not all of them were given enough quality time to shine as the film focused more on the main Transformers (e.g. Optimus and Bumblebee). Here, there aren’t as many Autobots as there were in the last two films and because of this they are allowed to have much more memorable personalities.

The new cast of human characters, while still not being the most developed characters out there mind you, was definitely a breath of fresh air for this series after the arcs of the characters from the original trilogy were already played out, mostly before the previous trilogy was even over. Mark Wahlberg instantly proves himself to be a superior lead to Shia LaBeouf in pretty much every way, as here he comes off as being very earnest and likable in the lead role (something Wahlberg is very much good at) and I found that I really liked how his character was very sympathetic being that he was someone who, as the movie begins, is just trying to get by making him a very relatable character in that regard. As for Nicola Peltz, while she unfortunately becomes yet another objectified blonde in a Michael Bay film (third film in a row this has happened, by the way), I actually thought that she wasn’t that bad in this. But Jack Reynor, on the other hand, comes off as being a bit too bland in this and he and Peltz don’t really have that much chemistry. As the main human villain, Kelsey Grammer doesn’t really do much in this film but I must say that Grammer definitely has a nice villainous presence in this regardless of the fact that he really isn’t in it as much as you would expect. Stanley Tucci is the other major standout of the cast besides Wahlberg. His character, a designer who looks to make his own Transformers after discovering the material that they’re made of, does have a pretty decent character arc in this, starting off as one of the supposed bad guys before having a change of heart. Plus, Tucci is just one of those actors who’s great no matter what film he’s in, good or bad.

I’m excited to see where this franchise goes next for its two sequels, but for the record, and I’m saying this as nicely as I possibly can, I think that it’s time for Michael Bay to step away from this franchise, if only because of the fact that more than a 1/3^rd of his directorial filmography so far has been nothing but these ‘Transformers’ movies. I do think that it’s time for someone else to take over as director of these films. Now, at the same time, I fear that whoever takes over these films won’t be able to match what Bay did with these films in terms of entertainment value, but I’m still interested in seeing these next two films because like with the trilogy that came before it, I loved ‘Age of Extinction’. Sure, this one suffers from being overlong (something that, for the record, never really bothered me with the other films aside from the prolonged finale of ‘Revenge of the Fallen’) but the new additions to the cast are a welcome change of pace that helps give this series a new life and of course the action sequences and visual effects are excellent. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… no one can make these Transformers movies quite like Michael Bay and his films are never boring (even when they’re nearly three hours long). Still, if you’re not one of those people who likes these movies (Though for the record why would you even be watching this new one if you hate the others so much? That’s something that I never understand…), that’s fine but for the love of god, don’t rain on the parade of those who did like it.

Rating: 4/5