Reviews

The first movie didn't receive great reviews upon release, but that didn't stop it from becoming the cult hit it shall forever be. Sometimes, critics get it wrong and, as they did with the first film, so too did many of them with this one. I honestly believe so many people just love Hocus Pocus so much that they transferred that love into this sequel. It's not a good movie. First, I'll talk about what is good in this movie. The actress that plays Becca does a great job - she owns the role that she is given. Her fellow young actresses also do a great job supporting her. The three veteran actresses do a decent job, as expected. Finally, the intro featuring the young Sanderson sisters is pretty good (extra kudos to the young actress who played Mary in nailing the original character's mannerisms.) In fact, I honestly feel like a sequel to Hocus Pocus would've worked so much better if done entirely as a prequel. We get a good set-up for their story and then it just turns into a derivative effort of the first film. This leads us into everything that doesn't work with the film. As I said, the young actresses did a good job, and while the veteran actresses can act they 1) are almost too over the top in trying to recapture their original performances - Hocus Pocus was a movie that was naturally campy and knew when to shift moods when required; this sequel, however, doesn't know when to be a bit more reserved when necessary. It's almost as if the actresses are playing caricatures of their original roles, and 2) they are quite noticeably older. Now I know some ppl won't like me mentioning this, but every story - even those about magic and such - needs to have a certain realness to it to keep it grounded. Seeing these witches act as if the last thing they remember is the climax of the first film yet appear to be three decades older undoes this. Tony Hale's mayor dad doesn't really know what to be except for a plot point in that he's a descendant of someone the sisters reviled and to set up the kidnapping of his daughter in his heed. Tony Hale is such an amazing actor it's a shame to waste him like that. Making Becca into a young witch is sort of a nice touch in the good vs evil mythos but it overall doesn't work. For one, it soils the original premise that witchcraft wasn't natural (in this universe) but something the sisters sold their souls for and maintained evil deeds to possess. Having Becca claim the book is even more baffling as originally it was an instrument of pure evil bound with literal human skin and helping witches to devour children and commit all kinds of other evil deeds. Having it betray Winifred due to her ignorance and selfishness is an interesting plot point but believing it to be a vehicle for any kind of good is inane. The biggest issue this movie has, overall, however is how derivative it is. It's one thing to try and recapture the wonder of the original film but it relies far too much on the same tropes and writing to the point it doesn't feel original at all. First of all, the sisters are brought back in the exact same way when there was an opportunity to do something even more original and interesting. The details that do differ here fall short as in the original a virgin lights the candle to impress a girl (very believable, very timeless) and in this version it's by a girl who bought it from a guy who somehow was able to recreate a magic candle because blah blah blah insert unbelievable plot point. The original scene of the sisters having their brooms stolen and Sarah and Mary having to use a mop and broom is recreated and while using the swiffer and roomba are fun updates to show the time difference it's just a rehash of a joke we've seen before. The attempts to throw in song and dance routines are a failed (and painfully, obviously forced) attempt to recreate the classic I Put a Spell on You number. There are very few fresh twists in this version which is highly disappointing for something that came out 29 years later. I'm shocked the cat actually didn't turn out to be Binx somehow given how much this movie wants to rip off the original rather than continue it in a new direction. Which leads me to a minor but annoying detail - why would the sisters even try to kill the cat if they thought it might be Binx? They're the ones who cursed him to be immortal thus knowing he cannot die unless their magic does. Overall, this film just didn't work. It borders on being average but the bad just overpowers the good, and it just doesn't work. It's not impossible to take a classic and make a great sequel out of it many years later, but it takes far more effort than what was put into this film, unfortunately.

This pilot suffers from bad acting from many characters and some pretty bad writing. I'd like to point out a few of the things that really bothered me: Jada Pinkett really overacts in her scenes whereas Donal Logue tries too hard to look like he's not trying too hard leading to some moments where a serious delivery was needed but not given. Mckenzie does a decent job as Gordon but some of the writing is just too silly to make it believable. They give too much screen time to the kid playing Bruce (he doesn't do a good job.)

Continuity related things that bother me: why are so many characters who shouldn't be relevant yet featured. Bullock should not be older than Gordon and Montoya would be around Bruce's age. Could they not come up with some original characters? Why did they feel the need to throw in so many villains even if only in cameo appearances? We get Falcone and Penguin and a young Catwoman (why is she stalking Bruce btw?), and cameo appearances of Poison Ivy and Riddler (who is also an adult when he shouldn't be much older than Bruce and he works for the GCPD?) when this show was announced it was supposed to be about a Gotham before super colorful criminals took over - but it seems like they're going to try and milk Batman's rogues gallery when Gordon is supposed to be the protagonist. Why did they change Sarah's name to Barbara? It made it creepy to me to see James call her that and then kiss her - Batman fans like me are used to seeing him call his DAUGHTER that. Also, shouldn't she be born already? She's in college before she becomes Batman's ally so he isn't two decades older than her. And no one pronounces Falcone's name right! And why is Bullock so corrupt? Originally he's a bit crooked but cleans his act up but the things he does here - including helping to set up and kill an innocent man and try to get James to kill a witness... those are irredeemable acts. They should've created an original character that they can kill off later after Gordon cleans up.

They should've done a lot of things differently...

But there are good things too I guess... the cinematography and visuals are great. Mckenzie isn't a bad actor, he just isn't given much to work with and Taylor is a convincing sociopath in his brief scenes. I won't give up yet (though I know it's going to turn into something other than what was advertised at the beginning being another "Batman" show instead of a pre-Batman era.) Let's just hope the writing and acting improve.

I was sort of conflicted when I watched this. It made me laugh out loud a few times and I really liked the character of Emma. But right around the move I began to question some of the choices these characters make... as for the mother Aurora... she needed to get laid. I can't say it any nicer than that. Nicholson's character was certainly rude and lost but definitely what she needed. I began, however, to dislike Emma and that made me conflicted. She asks to borrow money which she says is the hardest thing for her to do... she's crying as she does it. She's clearly embarrassed at the store when she doesn't have enough money and asking for the money clearly starts a fight with her husband... so why doesn't she get a job? Is she so stuck up like her mother? Then she thinks her husband is cheating and though I'm not sure at this point I don't think he is. Even up to the point that she sees him with the other woman I think his conversation indicates he wasn't cheating yet. But she had already cheated on him... and not told him yet still continued passing guilt on him. I think after this point is when he says screw it and gives into the affair and the move. I question that decision too. And right when this movie is making me question this character that I really liked before but am now not liking so much the film takes a crazy turn and goes into melodrama by giving Emma cancer. So is it trying to make me like her again by having me feel bad for her? I don't think that was the intent and thus I think this film is too befuddled to really receive all of the praise it gets. Yeah, it made me laugh and begin to feel different things but never to the degree that critics are praising it for. It's a decent film with good performances and for that it deserves praise but if I were around in '83 and had seen this I wouldn't be thinking best picture material at all.

That sounds pretentious, but hear me out. You can dislike something and still appreciate its merits. This is especially true of art movies like this one. Lawrence gives an amazing performance, but the true wins here are in the story and direction. The plot sometimes makes no sense to viewers - how realistic is it that this couple would show up and be allowed to stay, for instance - and is contrived, but it has to be. This is a visual story told through symbolism and it isn't afraid to get gritty, controversial, and unnerving in the way it presents itself. The real story of mother is one of a relationship. One that we all know about. One where one person gives everything and the other side only takes. One that is so cleverly disguised, however, that those watching on the outside - even those on the inside - may be confused into thinking that the love is real. The house is the first symbol. It represents the relationship. It burned down once before in his past relationship, but she is trying to build it back up. To make it new. You'll notice, however, that she is the only one working to make this house whole again. To improve it. He is too obsessed with his poetry - himself. When outsiders intrude upon the happy home he doesn't care about the damage they cause because they are paying attention to him - his glory. When she finally has enough and risks ending the relationship he gives her another reason to stay - the baby. It becomes the next symbol of the relationship. Something more personal because it's not a token of his past and it's something they created together. But once again he turns to his old ways with the publishing of his poem. This time it gets worse and everything descends into chaos. As the people tear down the walls she built he exclaims it isn't important. Still, he comes to her defense enough times to convince her that he means well - that he loves her - even as everything around them is destroyed. The publisher refers to her as the inspiration - this is one of the hooks he has in her. A lie to make it seem as if it isn't about just himself. This lie comes undone when the publisher gives the order to kill her. The only hope left is the baby which is still constantly put in danger throughout the chaos. After she gives birth he again turns back to his selfish ways. He wants the praise of the crowd and ends up sacrificing the child - and ultimately the relationship as she can stand no more. She is pushed to her breaking point and a relationship that should've ended long ago now ends in an unhealthy explosion of suppressed feelings that ultimately kills her. The relationship is dead and while he gets to go on doing what he does she gave it he all and as such is left completely dead. As a final insult he takes her heart as a trophy. Note that the former heart he had kept is the one thing he gets angry at the earlier couple for when they break it. The intruding woman doesn't understand why - a symbol of his selfishness, but he does care not because of what the past relationship meant to him, but because it was a trophy - a symbol of his sadism. He is a collector of hearts. Everything in this film is so straightforward I cannot understand how anyone could be confused. It plays out in chronological order. An emotionally abusive relationship that goes on for too long, with too much forgiveness, until it is too late and she is destroyed trying to save it. If you don't understand this then you may think of it as senseless and judge it only by the shock value. You'd be misjudging it, as whether you like it's message - or more importantly how it conveys its message - or not you can't deny that it does one hell of a job bringing it to life.

I wanted to like this film so much but it suffers from so much clutter. The only character that gets enough screen time is Barnabus and while the story is supposed to focus on some kind of love developing between he and Victoria she gets very little developmental. Many characters are wasted - such as Roger and Dr. Hoffman - and whether intentional or not given the soap opera background the acting was far too over the top by actors that are supposed to be amazing, ie Depp and Pfeiffer. It's sad when the children are the only ones who turn out a good performance though I must say Eva Green didn't disappoint. It's just too bad that her decent performance is muddled with ridiculous attempts at being comedic such as the sex scene with Barnabus. Going along with that it seems as if Burton only made Barnabus into a killing and screwing machine (what was the purpose of the bj the doc gave him again?) whose intent to see his family thrive and his curser squirm was just an afterthought rather than a driving force. Everything in this film felt so misplaced and rushed. The comedic timing was awful. The only reason I'm not dropping a point off my rating is because the end fight was actually entertaining (though we had to suffer to get to it) and the technical aspects were decent. After having Victoria willing to kill herself for the vampire we never actually saw her fall in love with (rush, rush, rush) and then taken over by the ghost of Barnabus' old love I wanted to just drop the rating even lower for the sheer stupidity, but I'm being fair here. If only this film were more fair to its audience.

OK, we get it. You don't like things that are contentious. You're watching the wrong show then! To begin with, they didn't serve the non-Kosher cupcakes. Max put 4 non-kosher ones in because she accidentally burnt some. I am not defending her. Furthermore, it's not surprising that Max would think it's okay to do so. A LOT of people don't understand the difference between kosher and non-kosher. Max is the perfect character who would choose to ignore this distinction. She learns her lesson - they don't get paid, and the mother is forgiving. As for the grandmother being a stereotype... um, did you not recognize her? She's the same woman who played Fran's mother on the Nanny and that show is ripe with Jewish stereotypes. Do you have a problem with that show? On that note you can tell with this family due to their appearance, colloquialisms, manner, and approach to certain traditions that they are not like most Jewish families today. They are still very attached to the old ways. There are some Jews today in the world like this. Portraying them that way is not wrong when it's accurate. Now, as for the boys, no, you wouldn't see something like that. However, many young people often break away from tradition. Many are influenced by peers and things they see in the media. I've seen younger children act worse than that with even more oblivious parents. It's comedy. It's nowhere near as bad as other things people try to pass off as comedy. Watch any Adam Sandler movie especially 'That's My Boy' and you'll see. So, I'm hoping by now you've stopped watching because this show is obviously not for you if you can't handle something this tame.